CDNAF vs PAG
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 PAG is a Sell.
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 whilePAG’s FA Score has 2 green FA rating(s).
- CDNAF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- PAG’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
Short-Term Analysis
It is best to consider a short-term outlook for a ticker by using Technical Analysis (TA) indicators. We use Odds of Success as the percentage of outcomes which confirm successful trade signals in the past.
If the Odds of Success (the likelihood of the continuation of a trend) for each indicator are greater than 50%, then the generated signal is confirmed. A green percentage from 90% to 51% indicates that the ticker is in a bullish trend. A red percentage from 90% - 51% indicates that the ticker is in a bearish trend. All grey percentages are below 50% and are considered not to confirm the trend signal.
PAG’s TA Score shows that 5 TA indicator(s) are bullish.
- PAG’s TA Score: 5 bullish, 4 bearish.
Price Growth
CDNAF (@Specialty Stores) experienced а -2.58% price change this week, while PAG (@Specialty Stores) price change was +1.54% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Specialty Stores industry was -2.18%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -1.33%, and the average quarterly price growth was +0.98%.
Reported Earning Dates
PAG is expected to report earnings on Feb 05, 2025.
Industries' Descriptions
@Specialty Stores (-2.18% 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.
| CDNAF | PAG | CDNAF / PAG | |
| Capitalization | 8B | 10.9B | 73% |
| EBITDA | 2.22B | 1.79B | 124% |
| Gain YTD | 1.488 | 2.435 | 61% |
| P/E Ratio | 12.22 | 10.37 | 118% |
| Revenue | 17.7B | 29.5B | 60% |
| Total Cash | 489M | 96.4M | 507% |
| Total Debt | 8.38B | 7.74B | 108% |
CDNAF | PAG | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 8 Undervalued | 69 Overvalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 5 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 76 | 50 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 58 | 53 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 98 | 31 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | n/a | 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.
CDNAF's Valuation (8) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for PAG (69) in the Specialty Stores industry. This means that CDNAF’s stock grew somewhat faster than PAG’s over the last 12 months.
PAG's Profit vs Risk Rating (5) in the Specialty Stores industry is significantly better than the same rating for CDNAF (100) in the null industry. This means that PAG’s stock grew significantly faster than CDNAF’s over the last 12 months.
PAG's SMR Rating (50) in the Specialty Stores industry is in the same range as CDNAF (76) in the null industry. This means that PAG’s stock grew similarly to CDNAF’s over the last 12 months.
PAG's Price Growth Rating (53) in the Specialty Stores industry is in the same range as CDNAF (58) in the null industry. This means that PAG’s stock grew similarly to CDNAF’s over the last 12 months.
PAG's P/E Growth Rating (31) in the Specialty Stores industry is significantly better than the same rating for CDNAF (98) in the null industry. This means that PAG’s stock grew significantly faster than CDNAF’s over the last 12 months.
| PAG | |
|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | N/A |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 64% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 74% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 69% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 70% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 69% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | 5 days ago 72% |
| Declines ODDS (%) | 11 days ago 58% |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 60% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 53% |
| 1 Day | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| ETFs / NAME | Price $ | Chg $ | Chg % |
| IFGL | 20.14 | 0.02 | +0.10% |
| iShares International Dev Real Est ETF | |||
| CSB | 61.67 | -0.14 | -0.23% |
| VictoryShares US SmCp Hi Div Vol Wtd ETF | |||
| RNSC | 31.11 | -0.21 | -0.68% |
| First Trust Small Cap US Equity Sel ETF | |||
| JMOM | 59.07 | -0.76 | -1.27% |
| JPMorgan US Momentum Factor ETF | |||
| ITOT | 128.85 | -1.70 | -1.30% |
| iShares Core S&P Total US Stock Mkt ETF | |||
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.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CDNAF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CDNAF | 100% | +0.12% | ||
| PAG - CDNAF | 47% Loosely correlated | -0.55% | ||
| SAH - CDNAF | 47% Loosely correlated | -1.24% | ||
| AN - CDNAF | 44% Loosely correlated | -1.30% | ||
| KMX - CDNAF | 44% Loosely correlated | -0.23% | ||
| LAD - CDNAF | 43% Loosely correlated | -0.42% | ||
More | ||||
PAG and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, PAG has been closely correlated with GPI. These tickers have moved in lockstep 85% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is a high statistical probability that if PAG jumps, then GPI could also see price increases.