CERGF vs MCSHF
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 CERGF is a Hold and MCSHF 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).
CERGF’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whileMCSHF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).
- CERGF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
- MCSHF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
Price Growth
CERGF (@Food Distributors) experienced а -6.25% price change this week, while MCSHF (@Food Distributors) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Food Distributors industry was +1.83%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +2.77%, and the average quarterly price growth was +29.13%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Food Distributors (+1.83% weekly)Food distributors function as intermediaries between food manufacturers and food service operators (such as chefs, restaurants, beverage managers, cafeterias, industrial caterers, hospitals and nursing homes). Food distribution companies buy, store and then supply food items to the food service operators, thereby allowing the latter to have access to a wide range of food items from various manufacturers. Sysco Corporation, US Foods Holding Corp. and Herbalife Nutrition Ltd. are some of the biggest (by market cap) U.S. companies in this segment. Most food service operators buy from local, specialty, and/or broad line food service distributors on a daily or weekly basis. With the rise in e-commerce, consumers are increasingly expecting lower prices, faster service, and higher quality – something that potentially creates the impetus on distribution networks to raise their game.
| CERGF | MCSHF | CERGF / MCSHF | |
| Capitalization | 55.1M | 2.34B | 2% |
| EBITDA | -13.91M | 558M | -2% |
| Gain YTD | 37.312 | 10.952 | 341% |
| P/E Ratio | 3.05 | 13.61 | 22% |
| Revenue | 1.11B | 15.8B | 7% |
| Total Cash | 7.12M | 107M | 7% |
| Total Debt | 66.9M | 1.32B | 5% |
CERGF | MCSHF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 90 | 42 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 48 Fair valued | 10 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 52 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 82 | 42 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 50 | 53 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 88 | 45 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | n/a | 75 |
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.
MCSHF's Valuation (10) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CERGF (48). This means that MCSHF’s stock grew somewhat faster than CERGF’s over the last 12 months.
MCSHF's Profit vs Risk Rating (52) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CERGF (100). This means that MCSHF’s stock grew somewhat faster than CERGF’s over the last 12 months.
MCSHF's SMR Rating (42) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CERGF (82). This means that MCSHF’s stock grew somewhat faster than CERGF’s over the last 12 months.
CERGF's Price Growth Rating (50) in the null industry is in the same range as MCSHF (53). This means that CERGF’s stock grew similarly to MCSHF’s over the last 12 months.
MCSHF's P/E Growth Rating (45) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CERGF (88). This means that MCSHF’s stock grew somewhat faster than CERGF’s over the last 12 months.
| RSI ODDS (%) |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) |
| Momentum ODDS (%) |
| MACD ODDS (%) |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) |
| Advances ODDS (%) |
| Declines ODDS (%) |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) |
| Aroon ODDS (%) |
CERGF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that CERGF and MCSHF have been poorly correlated (+28% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CERGF and MCSHF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CERGF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CERGF | 100% | N/A | ||
| MCSHF - CERGF | 28% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| JRONY - CERGF | 14% Poorly correlated | -0.27% | ||
| MCLE - CERGF | 4% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| MTTWF - CERGF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| KARNF - CERGF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
MCSHF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that MCSHF and CERGF have been poorly correlated (+28% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that MCSHF and CERGF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To MCSHF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MCSHF | 100% | N/A | ||
| CERGF - MCSHF | 28% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| JRONY - MCSHF | 5% Poorly correlated | -0.27% | ||
| OGOFF - MCSHF | 4% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| MTTWF - MCSHF | 1% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| KARNF - MCSHF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||