CHKGF vs SWPFF
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 CHKGF is a Hold and SWPFF 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).
CHKGF’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whileSWPFF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).
- CHKGF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
- SWPFF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
Price Growth
CHKGF (@Real Estate Development) experienced а +11.00% price change this week, while SWPFF (@Real Estate Development) price change was -7.43% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Real Estate Development industry was -1.15%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +1.92%, and the average quarterly price growth was +9.97%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Real Estate Development (-1.15% weekly)Activities range from the renovation and re-lease of existing buildings to the purchase of raw land and the sale of developed land or parcels to others. Demand for land development business is driven by GDP growth, employment rates, interest rates, and access to/cost of capital. For individual companies in this industry, proper cost estimation and successful bidding play critical roles in their profitability. Large companies could potentially have greater access to capital, while smaller companies can specialize in a specific geographic area or market niche. CBRE Group, VICI Properties Inc and Brookfield Property Partners L.P. are some of the large companies in this industry.
| CHKGF | SWPFF | CHKGF / SWPFF | |
| Capitalization | 20.6B | 14.6B | 141% |
| EBITDA | 32.9B | 11.7B | 281% |
| Gain YTD | 4.600 | -7.196 | -64% |
| P/E Ratio | 8.12 | 14.12 | 57% |
| Revenue | 74.5B | 13.5B | 552% |
| Total Cash | 59.8B | 5.91B | 1,011% |
| Total Debt | 51.1B | 21.4B | 239% |
CHKGF | SWPFF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 98 Overvalued | 12 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 100 | 85 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 43 | 61 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 36 | 37 | |
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.
SWPFF's Valuation (12) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for CHKGF (98). This means that SWPFF’s stock grew significantly faster than CHKGF’s over the last 12 months.
SWPFF's Profit vs Risk Rating (100) in the null industry is in the same range as CHKGF (100). This means that SWPFF’s stock grew similarly to CHKGF’s over the last 12 months.
SWPFF's SMR Rating (85) in the null industry is in the same range as CHKGF (100). This means that SWPFF’s stock grew similarly to CHKGF’s over the last 12 months.
CHKGF's Price Growth Rating (43) in the null industry is in the same range as SWPFF (61). This means that CHKGF’s stock grew similarly to SWPFF’s over the last 12 months.
CHKGF's P/E Growth Rating (36) in the null industry is in the same range as SWPFF (37). This means that CHKGF’s stock grew similarly to SWPFF’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 (%) |
CHKGF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that CHKGF and SWPFF have been poorly correlated (+23% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CHKGF and SWPFF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CHKGF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHKGF | 100% | N/A | ||
| SWPFF - CHKGF | 23% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| DLMI - CHKGF | 20% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CDEVF - CHKGF | 17% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CDEVY - CHKGF | 5% Poorly correlated | +1.07% | ||
| CAOVY - CHKGF | 5% Poorly correlated | -3.36% | ||
More | ||||
SWPFF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that SWPFF and CLILF have been poorly correlated (+23% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that SWPFF and CLILF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To SWPFF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SWPFF | 100% | N/A | ||
| CLILF - SWPFF | 23% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CHKGF - SWPFF | 23% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| HBUV - SWPFF | 21% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| GRGTF - SWPFF | 20% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| WARFF - SWPFF | 20% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||