CIADY vs RSGUF
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 CIADY is a StrongBuy and RSGUF 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).
CIADY’s FA Score shows that 2 FA rating(s) are green whileRSGUF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).
- CIADY’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
- RSGUF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 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.
CIADY’s TA Score shows that 5 TA indicator(s) are bullish while RSGUF’s TA Score has 1 bullish TA indicator(s).
- CIADY’s TA Score: 5 bullish, 5 bearish.
- RSGUF’s TA Score: 1 bullish, 4 bearish.
Price Growth
CIADY (@Food: Specialty/Candy) experienced а +4.13% price change this week, while RSGUF (@Food: Specialty/Candy) price change was +2.53% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Food: Specialty/Candy industry was -0.13%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +0.41%, and the average quarterly price growth was +16.77%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Food: Specialty/Candy (-0.13% 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.
| CIADY | RSGUF | CIADY / RSGUF | |
| Capitalization | 14.9B | 502M | 2,968% |
| EBITDA | 10.5B | 119M | 8,824% |
| Gain YTD | -7.019 | -0.734 | 957% |
| P/E Ratio | 19.12 | 12.55 | 152% |
| Revenue | 92.6B | 1.13B | 8,180% |
| Total Cash | N/A | 5.83M | - |
| Total Debt | N/A | 445M | - |
CIADY | RSGUF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 5 | 21 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 28 Undervalued | 7 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 74 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 28 | 56 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 58 | 72 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 46 | 48 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 50 | 3 |
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.
RSGUF's Valuation (7) in the null industry is in the same range as CIADY (28). This means that RSGUF’s stock grew similarly to CIADY’s over the last 12 months.
RSGUF's Profit vs Risk Rating (74) in the null industry is in the same range as CIADY (100). This means that RSGUF’s stock grew similarly to CIADY’s over the last 12 months.
CIADY's SMR Rating (28) in the null industry is in the same range as RSGUF (56). This means that CIADY’s stock grew similarly to RSGUF’s over the last 12 months.
CIADY's Price Growth Rating (58) in the null industry is in the same range as RSGUF (72). This means that CIADY’s stock grew similarly to RSGUF’s over the last 12 months.
CIADY's P/E Growth Rating (46) in the null industry is in the same range as RSGUF (48). This means that CIADY’s stock grew similarly to RSGUF’s over the last 12 months.
| CIADY | RSGUF | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 67% | N/A |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 72% | 24 days ago 51% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 63% | N/A |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 57% | N/A |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 61% | 24 days ago 37% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 69% | 24 days ago 34% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | 5 days ago 59% | N/A |
| Declines ODDS (%) | 26 days ago 64% | N/A |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 70% | 24 days ago 63% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 72% | 24 days ago 31% |
CIADY and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, CIADY has been loosely correlated with TYCMY. These tickers have moved in lockstep 43% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if CIADY jumps, then TYCMY could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CIADY | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CIADY | 100% | +2.73% | ||
| TYCMY - CIADY | 43% Loosely correlated | +1.14% | ||
| WHGLY - CIADY | 40% Loosely correlated | +0.57% | ||
| DAR - CIADY | 22% Poorly correlated | +5.53% | ||
| RSGUF - CIADY | 20% Poorly correlated | +2.53% | ||
| DANOY - CIADY | 13% Poorly correlated | +1.70% | ||
More | ||||
RSGUF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that RSGUF and LW have been poorly correlated (+32% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that RSGUF and LW's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To RSGUF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RSGUF | 100% | +2.53% | ||
| LW - RSGUF | 32% Poorly correlated | +0.20% | ||
| DAR - RSGUF | 20% Poorly correlated | +5.53% | ||
| CIADY - RSGUF | 20% Poorly correlated | +2.73% | ||
| SAPIF - RSGUF | 12% Poorly correlated | +2.92% | ||
| PRBZF - RSGUF | 12% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||