CLSK vs MFH
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 CLSK is a StrongBuy and MFH is a StrongBuy.
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).
CLSK’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whileMFH’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- CLSK’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
- MFH’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 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.
CLSK’s TA Score shows that 3 TA indicator(s) are bullish while MFH’s TA Score has 1 bullish TA indicator(s).
- CLSK’s TA Score: 3 bullish, 4 bearish.
- MFH’s TA Score: 1 bullish, 1 bearish.
Price Growth
CLSK (@Investment Banks/Brokers) experienced а -3.86% price change this week, while MFH (@Investment Banks/Brokers) price change was -2.36% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Investment Banks/Brokers industry was -1.29%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +61.82%, and the average quarterly price growth was +46.04%.
Reported Earning Dates
CLSK is expected to report earnings on May 07, 2025.
MFH is expected to report earnings on Dec 29, 2022.
Industries' Descriptions
@Investment Banks/Brokers (-1.29% weekly)These banks specialize in underwriting (helping companies with debt financing or equity issuances), IPOs, facilitating mergers and other corporate reorganizations and acting as a broker or financial advisor for institutions. They might also trade securities on their own accounts. Investment banks potentially thrive on expanding its network of clients, since that could help them increase profits. Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and CME Group Inc are some of the largest investment banking companies.
| CLSK | MFH | CLSK / MFH | |
| Capitalization | 4.78B | 74.4M | 6,426% |
| EBITDA | 60.4M | -10.38M | -582% |
| Gain YTD | 19.110 | 3.075 | 622% |
| P/E Ratio | N/A | N/A | - |
| Revenue | 216M | 670K | 32,239% |
| Total Cash | 176M | 441K | 39,909% |
| Total Debt | 15.2M | 7.28M | 209% |
CLSK | MFH | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 22 | 24 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 69 Overvalued | 71 Overvalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 80 | 50 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 93 | 99 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 54 | 34 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 86 | 100 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 50 | 75 |
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.
CLSK's Valuation (69) in the null industry is in the same range as MFH (71). This means that CLSK’s stock grew similarly to MFH’s over the last 12 months.
MFH's Profit vs Risk Rating (50) in the null industry is in the same range as CLSK (80). This means that MFH’s stock grew similarly to CLSK’s over the last 12 months.
CLSK's SMR Rating (93) in the null industry is in the same range as MFH (99). This means that CLSK’s stock grew similarly to MFH’s over the last 12 months.
MFH's Price Growth Rating (34) in the null industry is in the same range as CLSK (54). This means that MFH’s stock grew similarly to CLSK’s over the last 12 months.
CLSK's P/E Growth Rating (86) in the null industry is in the same range as MFH (100). This means that CLSK’s stock grew similarly to MFH’s over the last 12 months.
| CLSK | MFH | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | 24 days ago 83% | N/A |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 24 days ago 90% | N/A |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 24 days ago 90% | 24 days ago 87% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 24 days ago 75% | N/A |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 24 days ago 85% | 24 days ago 90% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 24 days ago 90% | 24 days ago 90% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | 26 days ago 87% | N/A |
| Declines ODDS (%) | 24 days ago 89% | 24 days ago 90% |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 24 days ago 90% | N/A |
CLSK and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, CLSK has been closely correlated with RIOT. These tickers have moved in lockstep 84% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is a high statistical probability that if CLSK jumps, then RIOT could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CLSK | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CLSK | 100% | +6.92% | ||
| RIOT - CLSK | 84% Closely correlated | +6.06% | ||
| MARA - CLSK | 81% Closely correlated | +4.13% | ||
| BITF - CLSK | 79% Closely correlated | +4.17% | ||
| HIVE - CLSK | 77% Closely correlated | +7.32% | ||
| CIFR - CLSK | 76% Closely correlated | +4.44% | ||
More | ||||
MFH and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that MFH and BTCS have been poorly correlated (+29% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that MFH and BTCS's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To MFH | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MFH | 100% | +0.57% | ||
| BTCS - MFH | 29% Poorly correlated | +0.97% | ||
| CLSK - MFH | 23% Poorly correlated | +6.92% | ||
| RJF - MFH | 21% Poorly correlated | -0.80% | ||
| BTBT - MFH | 21% Poorly correlated | +6.56% | ||
| LPLA - MFH | 21% Poorly correlated | -0.06% | ||
More | ||||