CICOF
Price
$1.78
Change
-$0.04 (-2.20%)
Updated
Jun 4 closing price
Capitalization
33.16B
MPZZF
Price
$1.60
Change
+$0.01 (+0.63%)
Updated
Jun 4 closing price
Capitalization
713.29M
Interact to see
Advertisement

CICOF vs MPZZF

Header iconCICOF vs MPZZF Comparison
Open Charts CICOF vs MPZZFBanner chart's image
COSCO SHIPPING Holdings
Price$1.78
Change-$0.04 (-2.20%)
Volume$2.2K
Capitalization33.16B
MPC Container Ships AS
Price$1.60
Change+$0.01 (+0.63%)
Volume$11.01K
Capitalization713.29M
CICOF vs MPZZF Comparison Chart
Loading...
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
CICOF vs. MPZZF commentary
Jun 05, 2025

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 CICOF is a Hold and MPZZF is a Hold.

Interact to see
Advertisement
COMPARISON
Comparison
Jun 05, 2025
Stock price -- (CICOF: $1.78 vs. MPZZF: $1.60)
Brand notoriety: CICOF and MPZZF are both not notable
Both companies represent the Marine Shipping industry
Current volume relative to the 65-day Moving Average: CICOF: 102% vs. MPZZF: 49%
Market capitalization -- CICOF: $33.16B vs. MPZZF: $713.29M
CICOF [@Marine Shipping] is valued at $33.16B. MPZZF’s [@Marine Shipping] market capitalization is $713.29M. The market cap for tickers in the [@Marine Shipping] industry ranges from $33.16B to $0. The average market capitalization across the [@Marine Shipping] industry is $4.72B.

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).

CICOF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileMPZZF’s FA Score has 2 green FA rating(s).

  • CICOF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
  • MPZZF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
According to our system of comparison, CICOF is a better buy in the long-term than MPZZF.

Price Growth

CICOF (@Marine Shipping) experienced а -3.90% price change this week, while MPZZF (@Marine Shipping) price change was -1.23% for the same time period.

The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Marine Shipping industry was +3.27%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +6.98%, and the average quarterly price growth was -2.98%.

Industries' Descriptions

@Marine Shipping (+3.27% weekly)

The marine shipping industry provides passenger transportation or cargo shipping services via waterways. This industry includes freight towage, ferry services and warehousing on deep-sea and inland waterways. The aviation sector may have reduced the popularity of sea travel for several passengers, but it is still in demand for short trips and pleasure cruises. Teekay Offshore Partners L.P. Cum Red Perp Pfd., Kirby Corporation and Seaspan Corporation are some of the well-known names in the business.

FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
CICOF($33.2B) has a higher market cap than MPZZF($713M). CICOF has higher P/E ratio than MPZZF: CICOF (4.16) vs MPZZF (2.86). CICOF YTD gains are higher at: 8.537 vs. MPZZF (-8.603). CICOF has higher annual earnings (EBITDA): 35.9B vs. MPZZF (358M). CICOF has higher revenues than MPZZF: CICOF (176B) vs MPZZF (540M).
CICOFMPZZFCICOF / MPZZF
Capitalization33.2B713M4,656%
EBITDA35.9B358M10,028%
Gain YTD8.537-8.603-99%
P/E Ratio4.162.86146%
Revenue176B540M32,593%
Total CashN/AN/A-
Total DebtN/A343M-
FUNDAMENTALS RATINGS
CICOF vs MPZZF: Fundamental Ratings
CICOF
MPZZF
OUTLOOK RATING
1..100
6390
VALUATION
overvalued / fair valued / undervalued
1..100
6
Undervalued
3
Undervalued
PROFIT vs RISK RATING
1..100
34100
SMR RATING
1..100
6228
PRICE GROWTH RATING
1..100
4255
P/E GROWTH RATING
1..100
9573
SEASONALITY SCORE
1..100
n/an/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.

MPZZF's Valuation (3) in the null industry is in the same range as CICOF (6). This means that MPZZF’s stock grew similarly to CICOF’s over the last 12 months.

CICOF's Profit vs Risk Rating (34) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for MPZZF (100). This means that CICOF’s stock grew significantly faster than MPZZF’s over the last 12 months.

MPZZF's SMR Rating (28) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CICOF (62). This means that MPZZF’s stock grew somewhat faster than CICOF’s over the last 12 months.

CICOF's Price Growth Rating (42) in the null industry is in the same range as MPZZF (55). This means that CICOF’s stock grew similarly to MPZZF’s over the last 12 months.

MPZZF's P/E Growth Rating (73) in the null industry is in the same range as CICOF (95). This means that MPZZF’s stock grew similarly to CICOF’s over the last 12 months.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
RSI
ODDS (%)
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
Momentum
ODDS (%)
MACD
ODDS (%)
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Advances
ODDS (%)
Declines
ODDS (%)
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
Aroon
ODDS (%)
View a ticker or compare two or three
Interact to see
Advertisement
Interesting Tickers
1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
1 Day
ETFs / NAMEPrice $Chg $Chg %
XSVN47.290.35
+0.76%
BondBloxx Bloomberg SevenYrTrgDurUSTrETF
HISF44.230.21
+0.48%
First Trust High Income Strat Foc ETF
NVDY16.040.07
+0.44%
YieldMax NVDA Option Income Strategy ETF
CFO69.79-0.12
-0.17%
VictoryShares US 500 Enh Vol Wtd ETF
SIJ6.73-0.01
-0.18%
ProShares UltraShort Industrials

CICOF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that CICOF and MPZZF have been poorly correlated (+24% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CICOF and MPZZF's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To CICOF
1D Price
Change %
CICOF100%
-2.14%
MPZZF - CICOF
24%
Poorly correlated
+0.63%
AMKAF - CICOF
22%
Poorly correlated
N/A
DSX - CICOF
21%
Poorly correlated
N/A
KNOP - CICOF
18%
Poorly correlated
-1.25%
CICOY - CICOF
18%
Poorly correlated
-1.16%
More

MPZZF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, MPZZF has been loosely correlated with HPGLY. These tickers have moved in lockstep 38% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if MPZZF jumps, then HPGLY could also see price increases.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To MPZZF
1D Price
Change %
MPZZF100%
+0.63%
HPGLY - MPZZF
38%
Loosely correlated
-4.64%
AMKBY - MPZZF
36%
Loosely correlated
+1.90%
SBLK - MPZZF
36%
Loosely correlated
-0.12%
HAFN - MPZZF
35%
Loosely correlated
+1.20%
HLAGF - MPZZF
34%
Loosely correlated
N/A
More