Advertisement
CDNTF vs VRM
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 CDNTF is a Hold and VRM is a Hold.
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).
CDNTF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileVRM’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- CDNTF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- VRM’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 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.
CDNTF’s TA Score shows that 2 TA indicator(s) are bullish while VRM’s TA Score has 4 bullish TA indicator(s).
- CDNTF’s TA Score: 2 bullish, 1 bearish.
- VRM’s TA Score: 4 bullish, 5 bearish.
Price Growth
CDNTF (@Specialty Stores) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while VRM (@Savings Banks) price change was -17.04% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Specialty Stores industry was -3.94%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -9.69%, and the average quarterly price growth was -5.17%.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Savings Banks industry was -3.30%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -5.49%, and the average quarterly price growth was +10.99%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Specialty Stores (-3.94% 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.
@Savings Banks (-3.30% weekly)A savings bank primary function is to take deposits and paying interest on those deposits. Originating in Europe during the 18th century, these banks were generally introduced to incentivize people of all stripes to save money and park them with banks. By the 1990s, the internet ushered in online savings banks that allowed savers to deposit/transact with banks digitally, without requiring to visit a branch office. Savings banks have potentially encouraged lower-income population to save and have access to a financial institution to earn interest on their money. New York Community Bancorp, Inc, Webster Financial Corporation, Washington Federal, Inc. are examples of savings banks.
| CDNTF | VRM | CDNTF / VRM | |
| Capitalization | 6.59B | 101M | 6,528% |
| EBITDA | 2.03B | -15.09M | -13,447% |
| Gain YTD | 29.046 | 285.828 | 10% |
| P/E Ratio | 17.53 | N/A | - |
| Revenue | 16.7B | 11.6M | 143,966% |
| Total Cash | 1.19B | 14.3M | 8,322% |
| Total Debt | 7.62B | 779M | 978% |
CDNTF | ||
|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 22 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 17 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 90 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 57 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 51 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 49 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 50 |
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.
| CDNTF | VRM | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | N/A | 2 days ago 71% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | N/A | 2 days ago 72% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 47% | 2 days ago 89% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 48% | 2 days ago 90% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 35% | 2 days ago 90% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 37% | 2 days ago 88% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | N/A | 10 days ago 77% |
| Declines ODDS (%) | N/A | 2 days ago 90% |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | N/A | 2 days ago 76% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 34% | 2 days ago 90% |
Advertisement
CDNTF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, CDNTF has been loosely correlated with MTPTF. These tickers have moved in lockstep 35% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if CDNTF jumps, then MTPTF could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CDNTF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CDNTF | 100% | N/A | ||
| MTPTF - CDNTF | 35% Loosely correlated | N/A | ||
| MTAGF - CDNTF | 30% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| ANCTF - CDNTF | 6% Poorly correlated | -1.12% | ||
| CMEIF - CDNTF | -0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| VRM - CDNTF | -2% Poorly correlated | +2.94% | ||
More | ||||
VRM and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, VRM has been loosely correlated with HNST. These tickers have moved in lockstep 41% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if VRM jumps, then HNST could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To VRM | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VRM | 100% | -4.35% | ||
| HNST - VRM | 41% Loosely correlated | +10.08% | ||
| CPRT - VRM | 40% Loosely correlated | -0.02% | ||
| CVNA - VRM | 33% Poorly correlated | -1.83% | ||
| LE - VRM | 32% Poorly correlated | -0.20% | ||
| BBBY - VRM | 27% Poorly correlated | +2.08% | ||
More | ||||