CDNAF
Price
$133.96
Change
-$0.33 (-0.25%)
Updated
Jun 23 closing price
Capitalization
8B
CMEIF
Price
$0.32
Change
+$0.04 (+14.29%)
Updated
Apr 2 closing price
Capitalization
1.47B
Interact to see
Advertisement

CDNAF vs CMEIF

Header iconCDNAF vs CMEIF Comparison
Open Charts CDNAF vs CMEIFBanner chart's image
Canadian Tire
Price$133.96
Change-$0.33 (-0.25%)
Volume$5.65K
Capitalization8B
China Meidong Auto
Price$0.32
Change+$0.04 (+14.29%)
Volume$102
Capitalization1.47B
CDNAF vs CMEIF Comparison Chart in %
Loading...
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
CDNAF vs. CMEIF commentary
Jun 24, 2025

To compare these two companies we present long-term analysis, their fundamental ratings and make comparative short-term technical analysis which are presented below. The conclusion is CDNAF is a Hold and CMEIF is a Hold.

Interact to see
Advertisement
COMPARISON
Comparison
Jun 24, 2025
Stock price -- (CDNAF: $133.96 vs. CMEIF: $0.32)
Brand notoriety: CDNAF and CMEIF are both not notable
Both companies represent the Specialty Stores industry
Current volume relative to the 65-day Moving Average: CDNAF: 37% vs. CMEIF: 100%
Market capitalization -- CDNAF: $8B vs. CMEIF: $1.47B
CDNAF [@Specialty Stores] is valued at $8B. CMEIF’s [@Specialty Stores] market capitalization is $1.47B. The market cap for tickers in the [@Specialty Stores] industry ranges from $380.15B to $0. The average market capitalization across the [@Specialty Stores] industry is $8.34B.

Long-Term Analysis

It is best to consider a long-term outlook for a ticker by using Fundamental Analysis (FA) ratings. The rating of 1 to 100, where 1 is best and 100 is worst, is divided into thirds. The first third (a green rating of 1-33) indicates that the ticker is undervalued; the second third (a grey number between 34 and 66) means that the ticker is valued fairly; and the last third (red number of 67 to 100) reflects that the ticker is undervalued. We use an FA Score to show how many ratings show the ticker to be undervalued (green) or overvalued (red).

CDNAF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileCMEIF’s FA Score has 3 green FA rating(s).

  • CDNAF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
  • CMEIF’s FA Score: 3 green, 2 red.
According to our system of comparison, CMEIF is a better buy in the long-term than CDNAF.

Price Growth

CDNAF (@Specialty Stores) experienced а +0.87% price change this week, while CMEIF (@Specialty Stores) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.

The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Specialty Stores industry was +0.63%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +2.71%, and the average quarterly price growth was +0.33%.

Industries' Descriptions

@Specialty Stores (+0.63% weekly)

The specialty stores sector includes companies dedicated to the sale of retail products focused on a single product category, such as clothing, carpet, books, or office supplies. A specialty store could face intense competition from big-box departmental chains, and therefore offering an adequate collection of the product type it specializes in is key in maintaining/growing its market.

FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
CDNAF($8B) has a higher market cap than CMEIF($1.47B). CMEIF has higher P/E ratio than CDNAF: CMEIF (20.66) vs CDNAF (12.22). CDNAF YTD gains are higher at: 27.703 vs. CMEIF (7.200). CDNAF has higher annual earnings (EBITDA): 2.22B vs. CMEIF (1.62B). CMEIF has more cash in the bank: 3.5B vs. CDNAF (489M). CMEIF has less debt than CDNAF: CMEIF (5.54B) vs CDNAF (8.38B). CMEIF has higher revenues than CDNAF: CMEIF (24.4B) vs CDNAF (17.7B).
CDNAFCMEIFCDNAF / CMEIF
Capitalization8B1.47B544%
EBITDA2.22B1.62B137%
Gain YTD27.7037.200385%
P/E Ratio12.2220.6659%
Revenue17.7B24.4B73%
Total Cash489M3.5B14%
Total Debt8.38B5.54B151%
FUNDAMENTALS RATINGS
CDNAF: Fundamental Ratings
CDNAF
OUTLOOK RATING
1..100
5
VALUATION
overvalued / fair valued / undervalued
1..100
12
Undervalued
PROFIT vs RISK RATING
1..100
56
SMR RATING
1..100
55
PRICE GROWTH RATING
1..100
40
P/E GROWTH RATING
1..100
96
SEASONALITY SCORE
1..100
n/a

Tickeron ratings are formulated such that a rating of 1 designates the most successful stocks in a given industry, while a rating of 100 points to the least successful stocks for that industry.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
RSI
ODDS (%)
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
Momentum
ODDS (%)
MACD
ODDS (%)
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Advances
ODDS (%)
Declines
ODDS (%)
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
Aroon
ODDS (%)
View a ticker or compare two or three
Interact to see
Advertisement
Interesting Tickers
1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
1 Day
MFs / NAMEPrice $Chg $Chg %
GTAPX13.770.04
+0.29%
Glenmede Long/Short Eq Ptf
AALGX27.96N/A
N/A
Thrivent Global Stock A
CGRWX32.17N/A
N/A
Invesco Comstock Select A
MIGHX41.13N/A
N/A
MFS Massachusetts Inv Gr Stk R3
WEMIX11.98N/A
N/A
Allspring Emerging Growth Inst

CDNAF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, CDNAF has been loosely correlated with PAG. These tickers have moved in lockstep 47% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if CDNAF jumps, then PAG could also see price increases.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To CDNAF
1D Price
Change %
CDNAF100%
-0.25%
PAG - CDNAF
47%
Loosely correlated
+1.05%
SAH - CDNAF
47%
Loosely correlated
+3.36%
AN - CDNAF
44%
Loosely correlated
+0.84%
KMX - CDNAF
44%
Loosely correlated
-2.04%
LAD - CDNAF
43%
Loosely correlated
+1.07%
More

CMEIF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that CMEIF and CZASF have been poorly correlated (+30% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CMEIF and CZASF's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To CMEIF
1D Price
Change %
CMEIF100%
N/A
CZASF - CMEIF
30%
Poorly correlated
N/A
FKRAF - CMEIF
25%
Poorly correlated
N/A
CDNAF - CMEIF
4%
Poorly correlated
-0.25%
VRM - CMEIF
3%
Poorly correlated
-13.84%
ANCTF - CMEIF
3%
Poorly correlated
+0.51%
More