CESDF vs GZPZF
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 CESDF is a Hold and GZPZF 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).
CESDF’s FA Score shows that 2 FA rating(s) are green whileGZPZF’s FA Score has 2 green FA rating(s).
- CESDF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
- GZPZF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
Price Growth
CESDF (@Oilfield Services/Equipment) experienced а -7.69% price change this week, while GZPZF (@Oilfield Services/Equipment) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Oilfield Services/Equipment industry was +0.58%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +7.44%, and the average quarterly price growth was -9.02%.
Reported Earning Dates
CESDF is expected to report earnings on Mar 06, 2025.
Industries' Descriptions
@Oilfield Services/Equipment (+0.58% weekly)The oilfield services/equipment industry is involved in providing various equipment and services to oil and natural gas producers. These companies rent drilling rigs and/or provide services to build and maintain oil and gas wells. The performance of this industry is dependent on demand for oil and natural gas, which in turn is often driven by macroeconomic conditions or business cycles. Schlumberger NV, Halliburton Company, and Baker Hughes are some of the biggest oilfield services companies.
| CESDF | GZPZF | CESDF / GZPZF | |
| Capitalization | 536M | 4.52B | 12% |
| EBITDA | 266M | 183M | 145% |
| Gain YTD | -39.042 | 6.029 | -648% |
| P/E Ratio | 6.26 | 23.92 | 26% |
| Revenue | 2.08B | 341M | 610% |
| Total Cash | 0 | 253M | - |
| Total Debt | 513M | 6.5M | 7,896% |
CESDF | GZPZF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 12 | 49 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 30 Undervalued | 57 Fair valued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 33 | 15 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 37 | 13 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 61 | 53 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 73 | 93 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 37 | 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.
CESDF's Valuation (30) in the null industry is in the same range as GZPZF (57). This means that CESDF’s stock grew similarly to GZPZF’s over the last 12 months.
GZPZF's Profit vs Risk Rating (15) in the null industry is in the same range as CESDF (33). This means that GZPZF’s stock grew similarly to CESDF’s over the last 12 months.
GZPZF's SMR Rating (13) in the null industry is in the same range as CESDF (37). This means that GZPZF’s stock grew similarly to CESDF’s over the last 12 months.
GZPZF's Price Growth Rating (53) in the null industry is in the same range as CESDF (61). This means that GZPZF’s stock grew similarly to CESDF’s over the last 12 months.
CESDF's P/E Growth Rating (73) in the null industry is in the same range as GZPZF (93). This means that CESDF’s stock grew similarly to GZPZF’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 (%) |
CESDF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, CESDF has been loosely correlated with SUBCY. These tickers have moved in lockstep 53% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if CESDF jumps, then SUBCY could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CESDF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CESDF | 100% | -5.41% | ||
| SUBCY - CESDF | 53% Loosely correlated | +4.05% | ||
| FTI - CESDF | 52% Loosely correlated | +0.54% | ||
| OII - CESDF | 50% Loosely correlated | +0.42% | ||
| NOV - CESDF | 49% Loosely correlated | +0.56% | ||
| WFRD - CESDF | 48% Loosely correlated | +1.12% | ||
More | ||||
GZPZF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that GZPZF and TNRSF have been poorly correlated (+23% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that GZPZF and TNRSF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To GZPZF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GZPZF | 100% | N/A | ||
| TNRSF - GZPZF | 23% Poorly correlated | -1.04% | ||
| FTK - GZPZF | 22% Poorly correlated | +6.39% | ||
| CTNR - GZPZF | 3% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CESDF - GZPZF | 2% Poorly correlated | -5.41% | ||
| CHOLF - GZPZF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||