CMBNF vs LLAZF
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 CMBNF is a Hold and LLAZF 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).
CMBNF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileLLAZF’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- CMBNF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- LLAZF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
Price Growth
CMBNF (@Regional Banks) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while LLAZF (@Regional Banks) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Regional Banks industry was -0.91%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +1.77%, and the average quarterly price growth was +14.82%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Regional Banks (-0.91% weekly)Regional banks have a smaller reach than major banks, and cater mostly to one region of a country, such as a state or within a group of states. They offer services often similar – albeit with some limitations/smaller scale – compared to major banks. Taking deposits, making loans, mortgages, leases, credit cards , fund management, insurance and investment banking. SunTrust Banks, State Street Corp., M&T Bank Corp. are some examples of U.S. regional banks.
| CMBNF | LLAZF | CMBNF / LLAZF | |
| Capitalization | 2.23B | 2.13B | 105% |
| EBITDA | N/A | N/A | - |
| Gain YTD | 0.000 | 1.170 | - |
| P/E Ratio | 11.79 | 12.36 | 95% |
| Revenue | 512M | 506M | 101% |
| Total Cash | N/A | N/A | - |
| Total Debt | 3.1B | 2.22B | 140% |
| RSI ODDS (%) |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) |
| Momentum ODDS (%) |
| MACD ODDS (%) |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) |
| Advances ODDS (%) |
| Declines ODDS (%) |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) |
| Aroon ODDS (%) |
CMBNF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, CMBNF has been loosely correlated with BLMIF. These tickers have moved in lockstep 64% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if CMBNF jumps, then BLMIF could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CMBNF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CMBNF | 100% | N/A | ||
| BLMIF - CMBNF | 64% Loosely correlated | N/A | ||
| STBK - CMBNF | 34% Loosely correlated | +0.51% | ||
| CBWA - CMBNF | 30% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CIBH - CMBNF | 29% Poorly correlated | +23.04% | ||
| CNBB - CMBNF | 28% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
LLAZF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, LLAZF has been loosely correlated with HMLN. These tickers have moved in lockstep 39% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if LLAZF jumps, then HMLN could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To LLAZF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LLAZF | 100% | N/A | ||
| HMLN - LLAZF | 39% Loosely correlated | N/A | ||
| OAKV - LLAZF | 22% Poorly correlated | +1.63% | ||
| LNKB - LLAZF | 10% Poorly correlated | -1.36% | ||
| CMBNF - LLAZF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CITZ - LLAZF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||