CMEIF vs VRM
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 CMEIF is a Hold and VRM 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).
CMEIF’s FA Score shows that 3 FA rating(s) are green whileVRM’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- CMEIF’s FA Score: 3 green, 2 red.
- VRM’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
Price Growth
CMEIF (@Specialty Stores) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while VRM (@Specialty Stores) price change was +31.03% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Specialty Stores industry was +2.10%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -3.27%, and the average quarterly price growth was -11.04%.
Reported Earning Dates
VRM is expected to report earnings on May 13, 2024.
Industries' Descriptions
@Specialty Stores (+2.10% weekly)The specialty stores sector includes companies dedicated to the sale of retail products focused on a single product category, such as clothing, carpet, books, or office supplies. A specialty store could face intense competition from big-box departmental chains, and therefore offering an adequate collection of the product type it specializes in is key in maintaining/growing its market.
| CMEIF | VRM | CMEIF / VRM | |
| Capitalization | 1.47B | 24.1M | 6,104% |
| EBITDA | 1.62B | -276M | -587% |
| Gain YTD | 7.200 | 658.483 | 1% |
| P/E Ratio | 20.66 | 13.28 | 156% |
| Revenue | 24.4B | 893M | 2,732% |
| Total Cash | 3.5B | 140M | 2,497% |
| Total Debt | 5.54B | 1.23B | 449% |
| RSI ODDS (%) |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) |
| Momentum ODDS (%) |
| MACD ODDS (%) |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) |
| Advances ODDS (%) |
| Declines ODDS (%) |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) |
| Aroon ODDS (%) |
| 1 Day | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| MFs / NAME | Price $ | Chg $ | Chg % |
| JGMCX | 18.24 | 0.18 | +1.00% |
| Janus Henderson Triton C | |||
| NMMEX | 14.46 | N/A | N/A |
| Northern Active M Emerging Market Equity | |||
| GSMYX | 20.28 | N/A | N/A |
| Goldman Sachs Small/Mid Cap Growth Instl | |||
| LCORX | 20.78 | N/A | N/A |
| Leuthold Core Investment Retail | |||
| RPNCX | 9.25 | N/A | N/A |
| Riverpark/Next Century Growth Retail | |||
CMEIF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that CMEIF and CZASF have been poorly correlated (+30% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CMEIF and CZASF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CMEIF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CMEIF | 100% | N/A | ||
| CZASF - CMEIF | 30% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| FKRAF - CMEIF | 25% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CDNAF - CMEIF | 4% Poorly correlated | +1.01% | ||
| VRM - CMEIF | 3% Poorly correlated | +11.08% | ||
| ANCTF - CMEIF | 3% Poorly correlated | +1.80% | ||
More | ||||