CRAYF vs CTSDF
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 CRAYF is a Hold and CTSDF 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).
CRAYF’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whileCTSDF’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- CRAYF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
- CTSDF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
Price Growth
CRAYF (@Information Technology Services) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while CTSDF (@Information Technology Services) price change was -0.52% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Information Technology Services industry was -3.14%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +2.08%, and the average quarterly price growth was +22.08%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Information Technology Services (-3.14% weekly)The industry, whose total market cap runs into trillions, makes hardware/software that allows data to be stored, retrieved, transmitted, and manipulated on computers. With the ever-increasing relevance of data, the information technology (IT) industry has gained momentous growth over the years, and continues to thrive on innovation. Some of the behemoths in the industry are International Business Machines Corporation, Accenture, and VMware, Inc.
| CRAYF | CTSDF | CRAYF / CTSDF | |
| Capitalization | 933M | 739M | 126% |
| EBITDA | 876M | -42.01M | -2,085% |
| Gain YTD | -5.333 | 66.376 | -8% |
| P/E Ratio | 41.84 | N/A | - |
| Revenue | 6.97B | 2.56B | 272% |
| Total Cash | 1.35B | 180M | 748% |
| Total Debt | 3.44B | 308M | 1,117% |
CTSDF | ||
|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 36 Fair valued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 67 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 96 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 36 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 99 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 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.
| RSI ODDS (%) |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) |
| Momentum ODDS (%) |
| MACD ODDS (%) |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) |
| Advances ODDS (%) |
| Declines ODDS (%) |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) |
| Aroon ODDS (%) |
CRAYF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that CRAYF and KNRLF have been poorly correlated (+22% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CRAYF and KNRLF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CRAYF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CRAYF | 100% | N/A | ||
| KNRLF - CRAYF | 22% Poorly correlated | +1.73% | ||
| CTSDF - CRAYF | 8% Poorly correlated | -0.69% | ||
| CGEMY - CRAYF | 6% Poorly correlated | +1.31% | ||
| EAXR - CRAYF | 3% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| FDRVF - CRAYF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
CTSDF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that CTSDF and CXGEF have been poorly correlated (+33% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CTSDF and CXGEF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CTSDF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CTSDF | 100% | -0.69% | ||
| CXGEF - CTSDF | 33% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| IBM - CTSDF | 30% Poorly correlated | -1.23% | ||
| EPAM - CTSDF | 29% Poorly correlated | -7.21% | ||
| FIS - CTSDF | 27% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| GIB - CTSDF | 27% Poorly correlated | -4.07% | ||
More | ||||