CICHF vs HBCYF
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 CICHF is a Hold and HBCYF 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).
CICHF’s FA Score shows that 3 FA rating(s) are green whileHBCYF’s FA Score has 2 green FA rating(s).
- CICHF’s FA Score: 3 green, 2 red.
- HBCYF’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.
CICHF’s TA Score shows that 2 TA indicator(s) are bullish while HBCYF’s TA Score has 3 bullish TA indicator(s).
- CICHF’s TA Score: 2 bullish, 5 bearish.
- HBCYF’s TA Score: 3 bullish, 4 bearish.
Price Growth
CICHF (@Major Banks) experienced а +3.61% price change this week, while HBCYF (@Major Banks) price change was +1.62% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Major Banks industry was +2.63%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +3.61%, and the average quarterly price growth was +8.58%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Major Banks (+2.63% weekly)Major banks are among the biggest companies in the world, often times with global reach and market capitalizations in the multi-billions. Large banks often have multiple arms spanning different disciplines, from deposits, to investment banking, to wealth management and insurance. The biggest banks often have key competitive advantages over smaller players in the industry in terms of brand recognition, cost of capital, and efficiency. Think J.P. Morgan, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Citigroup.
| CICHF | HBCYF | CICHF / HBCYF | |
| Capitalization | 148B | 164B | 90% |
| EBITDA | N/A | N/A | - |
| Gain YTD | -12.663 | 5.702 | -222% |
| P/E Ratio | 3.16 | 6.92 | 46% |
| Revenue | 823B | 71.3B | 1,154% |
| Total Cash | N/A | 327B | - |
| Total Debt | 2.12T | 85.4B | 2,480% |
CICHF | HBCYF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 5 Undervalued | 49 Fair valued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 25 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 1 | 2 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 50 | 41 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 30 | 36 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 16 | 50 |
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.
CICHF's Valuation (5) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for HBCYF (49). This means that CICHF’s stock grew somewhat faster than HBCYF’s over the last 12 months.
HBCYF's Profit vs Risk Rating (25) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for CICHF (100). This means that HBCYF’s stock grew significantly faster than CICHF’s over the last 12 months.
CICHF's SMR Rating (1) in the null industry is in the same range as HBCYF (2). This means that CICHF’s stock grew similarly to HBCYF’s over the last 12 months.
HBCYF's Price Growth Rating (41) in the null industry is in the same range as CICHF (50). This means that HBCYF’s stock grew similarly to CICHF’s over the last 12 months.
CICHF's P/E Growth Rating (30) in the null industry is in the same range as HBCYF (36). This means that CICHF’s stock grew similarly to HBCYF’s over the last 12 months.
| CICHF | HBCYF | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 12 days ago 57% | 12 days ago 55% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 12 days ago 52% | 12 days ago 72% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 12 days ago 56% | 12 days ago 61% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 12 days ago 47% | 12 days ago 66% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 12 days ago 52% | 12 days ago 67% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | N/A | 12 days ago 65% |
| Declines ODDS (%) | 12 days ago 42% | 14 days ago 54% |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | 12 days ago 66% | 12 days ago 56% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 12 days ago 62% | 12 days ago 71% |
CICHF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that CICHF and CICHY have been poorly correlated (+23% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CICHF and CICHY's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CICHF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CICHF | 100% | -1.17% | ||
| CICHY - CICHF | 23% Poorly correlated | -0.39% | ||
| BACHY - CICHF | 23% Poorly correlated | +1.13% | ||
| IDCBY - CICHF | 23% Poorly correlated | -0.63% | ||
| ACGBY - CICHF | 22% Poorly correlated | -0.52% | ||
| HBCYF - CICHF | 11% Poorly correlated | -0.40% | ||
More | ||||
HBCYF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, HBCYF has been loosely correlated with HSBC. These tickers have moved in lockstep 45% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if HBCYF jumps, then HSBC could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To HBCYF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HBCYF | 100% | -0.40% | ||
| HSBC - HBCYF | 45% Loosely correlated | -0.35% | ||
| SCBFY - HBCYF | 23% Poorly correlated | -0.15% | ||
| SMFNF - HBCYF | 23% Poorly correlated | -7.44% | ||
| BCS - HBCYF | 22% Poorly correlated | +1.93% | ||
| BCLYF - HBCYF | 21% Poorly correlated | -0.29% | ||
More | ||||