CKISF
Price
$6.80
Change
+$0.14 (+2.10%)
Updated
Aug 4 closing price
Capitalization
17.21B
CLPHY
Price
$8.41
Change
+$0.01 (+0.12%)
Updated
Aug 15 closing price
Capitalization
21.28B
Interact to see
Advertisement

CKISF vs CLPHY

Header iconCKISF vs CLPHY Comparison
Open Charts CKISF vs CLPHYBanner chart's image
CK Infrastructure Holdings
Price$6.80
Change+$0.14 (+2.10%)
Volume$375
Capitalization17.21B
CLP Holdings
Price$8.41
Change+$0.01 (+0.12%)
Volume$49.47K
Capitalization21.28B
CKISF vs CLPHY Comparison Chart in %
Loading...
CKISF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
CLPHY
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
CKISF vs. CLPHY commentary
Aug 17, 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 CKISF is a Hold and CLPHY is a Hold.

Interact to see
Advertisement
COMPARISON
Comparison
Aug 17, 2025
Stock price -- (CKISF: $6.80 vs. CLPHY: $8.41)
Brand notoriety: CKISF and CLPHY are both not notable
Both companies represent the Electric Utilities industry
Current volume relative to the 65-day Moving Average: CKISF: 67% vs. CLPHY: 95%
Market capitalization -- CKISF: $17.21B vs. CLPHY: $21.28B
CKISF [@Electric Utilities] is valued at $17.21B. CLPHY’s [@Electric Utilities] market capitalization is $21.28B. The market cap for tickers in the [@Electric Utilities] industry ranges from $155.29B to $0. The average market capitalization across the [@Electric Utilities] industry is $22.25B.

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).

CKISF’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whileCLPHY’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).

  • CKISF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
  • CLPHY’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
According to our system of comparison, CKISF is a better buy in the long-term than CLPHY.

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.

CKISF’s TA Score shows that 2 TA indicator(s) are bullish while CLPHY’s TA Score has 3 bullish TA indicator(s).

  • CKISF’s TA Score: 2 bullish, 1 bearish.
  • CLPHY’s TA Score: 3 bullish, 6 bearish.
According to our system of comparison, CKISF is a better buy in the short-term than CLPHY.

Price Growth

CKISF (@Electric Utilities) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while CLPHY (@Electric Utilities) price change was -0.74% for the same time period.

The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Electric Utilities industry was +0.29%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +1.34%, and the average quarterly price growth was +7.66%.

Industries' Descriptions

@Electric Utilities (+0.29% weekly)

Electric utilities companies generate, transmit and distribute electricity to businesses/offices and residences. Companies may be owned by the government or investors or public shareholders, or a combination thereof. The industry also includes firms that buy and sell electricity. Companies in this industry typically require significant investments in infrastructure. Many firms in this industry pay substantial and regular dividends to shareholders. However, changes in interest rates (and their impact on debt burdens), natural disasters and changing commodity prices could be factors affecting energy utilities’ profit margins. NextEra Energy, Inc., Duke Energy Corporation, Dominion Energy Inc. and Southern Company are among U.S. electric utilities companies with the largest market capitalizations.

SUMMARIES
Loading...
FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
CLPHY($21.3B) has a higher market cap than CKISF($17.2B). CKISF has higher P/E ratio than CLPHY: CKISF (15.66) vs CLPHY (14.60). CLPHY YTD gains are higher at: 4.533 vs. CKISF (-5.556).
CKISFCLPHYCKISF / CLPHY
Capitalization17.2B21.3B81%
EBITDAN/A26.8B-
Gain YTD-5.5564.533-123%
P/E Ratio15.6614.60107%
RevenueN/A91B-
Total CashN/AN/A-
Total DebtN/AN/A-
FUNDAMENTALS RATINGS
CKISF vs CLPHY: Fundamental Ratings
CKISF
CLPHY
OUTLOOK RATING
1..100
5050
VALUATION
overvalued / fair valued / undervalued
1..100
50
Fair valued
95
Overvalued
PROFIT vs RISK RATING
1..100
5769
SMR RATING
1..100
96100
PRICE GROWTH RATING
1..100
5655
P/E GROWTH RATING
1..100
5291
SEASONALITY SCORE
1..100
n/a50

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.

CKISF's Valuation (50) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CLPHY (95). This means that CKISF’s stock grew somewhat faster than CLPHY’s over the last 12 months.

CKISF's Profit vs Risk Rating (57) in the null industry is in the same range as CLPHY (69). This means that CKISF’s stock grew similarly to CLPHY’s over the last 12 months.

CKISF's SMR Rating (96) in the null industry is in the same range as CLPHY (100). This means that CKISF’s stock grew similarly to CLPHY’s over the last 12 months.

CLPHY's Price Growth Rating (55) in the null industry is in the same range as CKISF (56). This means that CLPHY’s stock grew similarly to CKISF’s over the last 12 months.

CKISF's P/E Growth Rating (52) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CLPHY (91). This means that CKISF’s stock grew somewhat faster than CLPHY’s over the last 12 months.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
CKISFCLPHY
RSI
ODDS (%)
N/A
N/A
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
29%
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
65%
Momentum
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
57%
MACD
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
31%
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
57%
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
24%
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
48%
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
21%
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
54%
Advances
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bullish Trend 6 days ago
55%
Declines
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
44%
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
57%
Aroon
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
36%
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
61%
View a ticker or compare two or three
Interact to see
Advertisement
CKISF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
CLPHY
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
Interesting Tickers
1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
1 Day
ETFs / NAMEPrice $Chg $Chg %
SNOY14.910.24
+1.64%
YieldMax SNOW Option Income Strategy ETF
HYZD22.490.02
+0.08%
WisdomTree Interest Rt Hdg Hi Yld Bd ETF
XHYF37.800.01
+0.03%
BondBloxx US Hg Yld Fncl & REIT Str ETF
MOAT97.61-0.44
-0.45%
VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF
DPST93.18-5.09
-5.18%
Direxion Daily Regional Bnks Bull 3X ETF

CKISF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that CKISF and CLPHY have been poorly correlated (+7% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CKISF and CLPHY's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To CKISF
1D Price
Change %
CKISF100%
N/A
CLPHY - CKISF
7%
Poorly correlated
+0.09%
CKISY - CKISF
2%
Poorly correlated
N/A
CLPHF - CKISF
-0%
Poorly correlated
N/A