CMPGF vs DMPZF
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 CMPGF is a Hold and DMPZF 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).
CMPGF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileDMPZF’s FA Score has 2 green FA rating(s).
- CMPGF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- DMPZF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 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.
CMPGF’s TA Score shows that 3 TA indicator(s) are bullish.
- CMPGF’s TA Score: 3 bullish, 2 bearish.
Price Growth
CMPGF (@Restaurants) experienced а +3.58% price change this week, while DMPZF (@Restaurants) price change was -13.73% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Restaurants industry was +0.49%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +7.04%, and the average quarterly price growth was +161.71%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Restaurants (+0.49% weekly)The industry includes companies that operate full-service restaurants, fast food restaurants, cafeterias and snack bars. McDonald`s Corporation, Starbucks Corporation, YUM! Brands, Inc. and Restaurant Brands International Inc. are some of the largest U.S. restaurant-owning companies in terms of market capitalization. While restaurant spending could be viewed as discretionary for consumers, some companies in the business have been able to weather economic cycles by establishing strong loyalty among customers over the years. Many of them also have a strong global presence as well.
| CMPGF | DMPZF | CMPGF / DMPZF | |
| Capitalization | 55.5B | 1.4B | 3,976% |
| EBITDA | 3.41B | 162M | 2,106% |
| Gain YTD | 2.605 | -13.281 | -20% |
| P/E Ratio | 40.68 | 14.10 | 288% |
| Revenue | 42B | 674M | 6,231% |
| Total Cash | 437M | 25.9M | 1,687% |
| Total Debt | 5.91B | 536M | 1,103% |
CMPGF | DMPZF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 51 Fair valued | 10 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 45 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 96 | 11 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 45 | 85 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 24 | 49 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 48 | n/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.
DMPZF's Valuation (10) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CMPGF (51). This means that DMPZF’s stock grew somewhat faster than CMPGF’s over the last 12 months.
CMPGF's Profit vs Risk Rating (45) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for DMPZF (100). This means that CMPGF’s stock grew somewhat faster than DMPZF’s over the last 12 months.
DMPZF's SMR Rating (11) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for CMPGF (96). This means that DMPZF’s stock grew significantly faster than CMPGF’s over the last 12 months.
CMPGF's Price Growth Rating (45) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for DMPZF (85). This means that CMPGF’s stock grew somewhat faster than DMPZF’s over the last 12 months.
CMPGF's P/E Growth Rating (24) in the null industry is in the same range as DMPZF (49). This means that CMPGF’s stock grew similarly to DMPZF’s over the last 12 months.
| CMPGF | DMPZF | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 12 days ago 49% | N/A |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 12 days ago 58% | N/A |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 12 days ago 50% | N/A |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 12 days ago 53% | 12 days ago 30% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 12 days ago 38% | 12 days ago 29% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Declines ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| 1 Day | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| MFs / NAME | Price $ | Chg $ | Chg % |
| FSZZX | 8.63 | 0.07 | +0.82% |
| Fidelity Advisor Sustainable EM Eq Z | |||
| QCLVX | 31.80 | 0.09 | +0.28% |
| Federated Hermes MDT Large Cap Value C | |||
| JIGIX | 27.22 | 0.07 | +0.26% |
| JHancock International Growth R4 | |||
| IIGZX | 11.88 | 0.03 | +0.25% |
| Voya Global High Dividend Low Vol Port I | |||
| IGREX | 8.68 | N/A | N/A |
| Invesco Global Real Estate R5 | |||
CMPGF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that CMPGF and CMPGY have been poorly correlated (+23% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CMPGF and CMPGY's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CMPGF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CMPGF | 100% | N/A | ||
| CMPGY - CMPGF | 23% Poorly correlated | -1.08% | ||
| WEN - CMPGF | 15% Poorly correlated | -1.68% | ||
| DIN - CMPGF | 13% Poorly correlated | -0.19% | ||
| LOCO - CMPGF | 11% Poorly correlated | -0.17% | ||
| JDWPY - CMPGF | 10% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
DMPZF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that DMPZF and BDL have been poorly correlated (+23% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that DMPZF and BDL's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To DMPZF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DMPZF | 100% | N/A | ||
| BDL - DMPZF | 23% Poorly correlated | +0.18% | ||
| DPUKY - DMPZF | 11% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CMPGY - DMPZF | 7% Poorly correlated | -1.08% | ||
| CMPGF - DMPZF | 5% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| KRUS - DMPZF | 4% Poorly correlated | -9.26% | ||
More | ||||