Advertisement
CNVVF vs CSBTF
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 CNVVF is a Hold and CSBTF 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).
CNVVF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileCSBTF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).
- CNVVF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- CSBTF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 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.
CNVVF’s TA Score shows that 3 TA indicator(s) are bullish while CSBTF’s TA Score has 3 bullish TA indicator(s).
- CNVVF’s TA Score: 3 bullish, 5 bearish.
- CSBTF’s TA Score: 3 bullish, 3 bearish.
Price Growth
CNVVF (@Medical Specialties) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while CSBTF (@Medical Specialties) price change was +0.69% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Medical Specialties industry was +3.01%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +4.92%, and the average quarterly price growth was -2.24%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Medical Specialties (+3.01% weekly)Medical specialties are companies that make equipment used by the health care industry. Equipment manufactured and distributed by these companies include dialysis machines, blood analysis equipment, surgical equipment, dental instruments, and diagnostic tools, among other items. Large companies typically aim to produce and distribute high-quality products across a broad market spectrum. Smaller firms are more likely to specialize in a particular market segment. Due to the industry’s close association with medical treatments, they typically have low sensitivity to macroeconomic fluctuations. Within this industry, Abbott Laboratories, Medtronic Plc and Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. are some of the companies with multi-billion market capitalizations in the U.S. stock markets.
| CNVVF | CSBTF | CNVVF / CSBTF | |
| Capitalization | 5.48B | 99.1M | 5,534% |
| EBITDA | 356M | -8.84M | -4,027% |
| Gain YTD | 20.332 | 59.637 | 34% |
| P/E Ratio | 85.47 | N/A | - |
| Revenue | 2.07B | 18M | 11,511% |
| Total Cash | 144M | 24.1M | 598% |
| Total Debt | 1.3B | 1.91M | 67,956% |
CNVVF | CSBTF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 90 | 94 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 10 Undervalued | 55 Fair valued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 51 | 18 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 91 | 91 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 53 | 37 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 74 | 100 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 50 | 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.
CNVVF's Valuation (10) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CSBTF (55). This means that CNVVF’s stock grew somewhat faster than CSBTF’s over the last 12 months.
CSBTF's Profit vs Risk Rating (18) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CNVVF (51). This means that CSBTF’s stock grew somewhat faster than CNVVF’s over the last 12 months.
CSBTF's SMR Rating (91) in the null industry is in the same range as CNVVF (91). This means that CSBTF’s stock grew similarly to CNVVF’s over the last 12 months.
CSBTF's Price Growth Rating (37) in the null industry is in the same range as CNVVF (53). This means that CSBTF’s stock grew similarly to CNVVF’s over the last 12 months.
CNVVF's P/E Growth Rating (74) in the null industry is in the same range as CSBTF (100). This means that CNVVF’s stock grew similarly to CSBTF’s over the last 12 months.
| CNVVF | CSBTF | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 40% | 2 days ago 43% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 32% | 2 days ago 76% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 17% | 2 days ago 72% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 24% | 2 days ago 36% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 29% | 2 days ago 37% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 16% | 2 days ago 38% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Declines ODDS (%) | N/A | 9 days ago 62% |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | 24 days ago 25% | N/A |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 10% | 2 days ago 73% |
Advertisement
CNVVF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, CNVVF has been loosely correlated with FLMNY. These tickers have moved in lockstep 36% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if CNVVF jumps, then FLMNY could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CNVVF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CNVVF | 100% | N/A | ||
| FLMNY - CNVVF | 36% Loosely correlated | N/A | ||
| SAFLY - CNVVF | 32% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| GKOS - CNVVF | 24% Poorly correlated | -0.08% | ||
| EW - CNVVF | 23% Poorly correlated | +5.54% | ||
| OFIX - CNVVF | 22% Poorly correlated | +0.27% | ||
More | ||||
CSBTF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that CSBTF and APYX have been poorly correlated (+22% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CSBTF and APYX's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CSBTF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CSBTF | 100% | +0.69% | ||
| APYX - CSBTF | 22% Poorly correlated | +7.17% | ||
| DIZTF - CSBTF | 4% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CHEOY - CSBTF | 2% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CLPBF - CSBTF | 2% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CNVVF - CSBTF | 1% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||