CHLLF vs FMHS
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 CHLLF is a Hold and FMHS 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).
CHLLF’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whileFMHS’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).
- CHLLF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
- FMHS’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
Price Growth
CHLLF (@Internet Software/Services) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while FMHS (@Internet Software/Services) price change was +7.21% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Internet Software/Services industry was +3.27%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +5.08%, and the average quarterly price growth was +7.50%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Internet Software/Services (+3.27% weekly)Companies in this industry typically license software on a subscription basis and it is centrally hosted. Such products usually go by the names web-based software, on-demand software and hosted software. Cloud computing has emerged as a major force in this space, making it possible to save files to a remote database (without requiring them to be saved on local storage device); as long as a device has access to the web, it can access the data and the software programs to run it. This has in many cases facilitated cost efficiency, speed and security of data for businesses and consumers. Alphabet Inc., Facebook, Inc. and Yahoo! Inc. are some well-known names in the internet software/services industry.
| CHLLF | FMHS | CHLLF / FMHS | |
| Capitalization | 4.6B | 1.04M | 442,019% |
| EBITDA | 1.34B | -330.02K | -406,947% |
| Gain YTD | 11.246 | -28.524 | -39% |
| P/E Ratio | 48.08 | N/A | - |
| Revenue | 8.41B | 11.3K | 74,451,327% |
| Total Cash | 7.16B | 8.68K | 82,449,873% |
| Total Debt | 843M | 95K | 887,368% |
CHLLF | FMHS | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 42 | 29 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 52 Fair valued | 14 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 80 | 94 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 46 | 36 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 67 | 100 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | n/a | 18 |
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.
FMHS's Valuation (14) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CHLLF (52). This means that FMHS’s stock grew somewhat faster than CHLLF’s over the last 12 months.
FMHS's Profit vs Risk Rating (100) in the null industry is in the same range as CHLLF (100). This means that FMHS’s stock grew similarly to CHLLF’s over the last 12 months.
CHLLF's SMR Rating (80) in the null industry is in the same range as FMHS (94). This means that CHLLF’s stock grew similarly to FMHS’s over the last 12 months.
FMHS's Price Growth Rating (36) in the null industry is in the same range as CHLLF (46). This means that FMHS’s stock grew similarly to CHLLF’s over the last 12 months.
CHLLF's P/E Growth Rating (67) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for FMHS (100). This means that CHLLF’s stock grew somewhat faster than FMHS’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 (%) |
CHLLF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, CHLLF has been closely correlated with NBIS. These tickers have moved in lockstep 73% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is a high statistical probability that if CHLLF jumps, then NBIS could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CHLLF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHLLF | 100% | N/A | ||
| NBIS - CHLLF | 73% Closely correlated | +6.90% | ||
| HRYU - CHLLF | 36% Loosely correlated | -4.36% | ||
| UPXI - CHLLF | 23% Poorly correlated | +18.41% | ||
| PODC - CHLLF | 20% Poorly correlated | +5.82% | ||
| KRKR - CHLLF | 14% Poorly correlated | +1.94% | ||
More | ||||
FMHS and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that FMHS and CTTMF have been poorly correlated (+5% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that FMHS and CTTMF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To FMHS | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FMHS | 100% | N/A | ||
| CTTMF - FMHS | 5% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| MRPT - FMHS | 4% Poorly correlated | -15.00% | ||
| CHLLF - FMHS | 4% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| KKKUF - FMHS | -1% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| DATI - FMHS | -2% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||