CIADF vs FPAFF
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 CIADF is a Hold and FPAFF is a Buy.
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).
CIADF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileFPAFF’s FA Score has 2 green FA rating(s).
- CIADF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- FPAFF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 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.
CIADF’s TA Score shows that 2 TA indicator(s) are bullish while FPAFF’s TA Score has 4 bullish TA indicator(s).
- CIADF’s TA Score: 2 bullish, 0 bearish.
- FPAFF’s TA Score: 4 bullish, 3 bearish.
Price Growth
CIADF (@Food: Specialty/Candy) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while FPAFF (@Food: Specialty/Candy) price change was +3.45% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Food: Specialty/Candy industry was -1.68%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +1.65%, and the average quarterly price growth was +17.95%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Food: Specialty/Candy (-1.68% weekly)A specialty/candy manufacturer specializes in one or more of the following: chocolate, candies, pasta, condiments, seasonings, among other items. Hershey Company, McCormick & Company and J.M. Smucker Company are some of the major firms in this segment. Demand for this industry’s products comes from both institutions/restaurants as well as households.
| CIADF | FPAFF | CIADF / FPAFF | |
| Capitalization | 14.9B | 1.53B | 971% |
| EBITDA | 9.01B | 2.25B | 400% |
| Gain YTD | -42.673 | 56.207 | -76% |
| P/E Ratio | 21.83 | 3.90 | 559% |
| Revenue | 88.1B | 9.95B | 886% |
| Total Cash | 15.9B | 2.81B | 566% |
| Total Debt | 27B | 11.2B | 241% |
CIADF | FPAFF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 39 | 32 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 15 Undervalued | 12 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 35 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 56 | 98 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 79 | 40 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 91 | 17 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 17 | 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.
FPAFF's Valuation (12) in the null industry is in the same range as CIADF (15). This means that FPAFF’s stock grew similarly to CIADF’s over the last 12 months.
FPAFF's Profit vs Risk Rating (35) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CIADF (100). This means that FPAFF’s stock grew somewhat faster than CIADF’s over the last 12 months.
CIADF's SMR Rating (56) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for FPAFF (98). This means that CIADF’s stock grew somewhat faster than FPAFF’s over the last 12 months.
FPAFF's Price Growth Rating (40) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CIADF (79). This means that FPAFF’s stock grew somewhat faster than CIADF’s over the last 12 months.
FPAFF's P/E Growth Rating (17) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for CIADF (91). This means that FPAFF’s stock grew significantly faster than CIADF’s over the last 12 months.
| CIADF | FPAFF | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | N/A | 2 days ago 72% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | N/A | 2 days ago 73% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | N/A | 2 days ago 83% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | N/A | 2 days ago 76% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 21% | 2 days ago 70% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 25% | 2 days ago 70% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Declines ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | N/A | 2 days ago 74% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | N/A | 2 days ago 73% |
CIADF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that CIADF and SHVTF have been poorly correlated (+23% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CIADF and SHVTF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CIADF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CIADF | 100% | N/A | ||
| SHVTF - CIADF | 23% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CFEIY - CIADF | 21% Poorly correlated | +2.33% | ||
| FPAFF - CIADF | 5% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| DANOY - CIADF | 4% Poorly correlated | -0.73% | ||
| CIADY - CIADF | 0% Poorly correlated | +3.35% | ||
More | ||||
FPAFF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that FPAFF and BRRLY have been poorly correlated (+20% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that FPAFF and BRRLY's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To FPAFF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FPAFF | 100% | N/A | ||
| BRRLY - FPAFF | 20% Poorly correlated | -1.98% | ||
| CUSI - FPAFF | 16% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| FPAFY - FPAFF | 13% Poorly correlated | -1.58% | ||
| CIADY - FPAFF | 11% Poorly correlated | +3.35% | ||
| CIADF - FPAFF | 5% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||