Advertisement
CMUV vs MLGF
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 CMUV is a Hold and MLGF 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).
CMUV’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileMLGF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).
- CMUV’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- MLGF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
Price Growth
CMUV (@Regional Banks) experienced а +2.23% price change this week, while MLGF (@Regional Banks) price change was -1.63% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Regional Banks industry was -0.09%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +2.33%, and the average quarterly price growth was +3.94%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Regional Banks (-0.09% 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.
| CMUV | MLGF | CMUV / MLGF | |
| Capitalization | 26.4M | 41.8M | 63% |
| EBITDA | N/A | N/A | - |
| Gain YTD | 11.771 | -7.079 | -166% |
| P/E Ratio | 7.39 | 7.61 | 97% |
| Revenue | 11.7M | 18M | 65% |
| Total Cash | N/A | N/A | - |
| Total Debt | N/A | 263M | - |
CMUV | MLGF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 44 | 2 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 81 Overvalued | 39 Fair valued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 4 | 11 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 100 | 100 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 44 | 57 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 100 | 100 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | n/a | 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.
MLGF's Valuation (39) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CMUV (81). This means that MLGF’s stock grew somewhat faster than CMUV’s over the last 12 months.
CMUV's Profit vs Risk Rating (4) in the null industry is in the same range as MLGF (11). This means that CMUV’s stock grew similarly to MLGF’s over the last 12 months.
CMUV's SMR Rating (100) in the null industry is in the same range as MLGF (100). This means that CMUV’s stock grew similarly to MLGF’s over the last 12 months.
CMUV's Price Growth Rating (44) in the null industry is in the same range as MLGF (57). This means that CMUV’s stock grew similarly to MLGF’s over the last 12 months.
CMUV's P/E Growth Rating (100) in the null industry is in the same range as MLGF (100). This means that CMUV’s stock grew similarly to MLGF’s over the last 12 months.
| RSI ODDS (%) |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) |
| Momentum ODDS (%) |
| MACD ODDS (%) |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) |
| Advances ODDS (%) |
| Declines ODDS (%) |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) |
| Aroon ODDS (%) |
Advertisement
| 1 Day | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| ETFs / NAME | Price $ | Chg $ | Chg % |
| VTWO | 84.49 | 1.34 | +1.61% |
| Vanguard Russell 2000 ETF | |||
| XBJL | 35.53 | 0.13 | +0.36% |
| Innovator US Eq Acclrtd 9 Bffr ETF Jul | |||
| PFFV | 22.86 | 0.04 | +0.17% |
| Global X Variable Rate Preferred ETF | |||
| IIGD | 24.52 | N/A | +0.02% |
| Invesco Investment Grade Defensive ETF | |||
| KIE | 59.61 | -0.04 | -0.07% |
| SPDR® S&P Insurance ETF | |||
CMUV and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that CMUV and FMCB have been poorly correlated (+24% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CMUV and FMCB's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CMUV | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CMUV | 100% | N/A | ||
| FMCB - CMUV | 24% Poorly correlated | +0.05% | ||
| MLGF - CMUV | 23% Poorly correlated | -0.14% | ||
| SVBT - CMUV | 22% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CNBP - CMUV | 22% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CKHGY - CMUV | 8% Poorly correlated | -1.93% | ||
More | ||||
MLGF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that MLGF and RBKB have been poorly correlated (+25% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that MLGF and RBKB's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To MLGF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MLGF | 100% | -0.14% | ||
| RBKB - MLGF | 25% Poorly correlated | +0.60% | ||
| FSRL - MLGF | 24% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CMUV - MLGF | 23% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| NDBKF - MLGF | 20% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| MLYBY - MLGF | 11% Poorly correlated | +2.84% | ||
More | ||||