CSNVF vs IRLCF
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 CSNVF is a Sell and IRLCF 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).
CSNVF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileIRLCF’s FA Score has 2 green FA rating(s).
- CSNVF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- IRLCF’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.
CSNVF’s TA Score shows that 2 TA indicator(s) are bullish.
- CSNVF’s TA Score: 2 bullish, 3 bearish.
Price Growth
CSNVF (@Chemicals: Specialty) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while IRLCF (@Chemicals: Specialty) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Chemicals: Specialty industry was -3.00%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -3.63%, and the average quarterly price growth was -5.64%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Chemicals: Specialty (-3.00% weekly)The specialty chemicals sector includes companies that produce chemicals and industrial gases, which are of relatively high-value, often made to customer specifications. Examples of specialty chemicals are electronic chemicals, industrial gases, coatings, adhesives and sealants, industrial and institutional cleaning chemicals. The products are often valued on the basis of their purposes/performances rather than for their composition. Linde Plc, Ecolab Inc., Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., and Dow, Inc. are some of the largest companies making specialty chemicals.
| CSNVF | IRLCF | CSNVF / IRLCF | |
| Capitalization | 1.39B | 1.97B | 71% |
| EBITDA | 163M | 1.71B | 10% |
| Gain YTD | 12.274 | 0.915 | 1,342% |
| P/E Ratio | 13.91 | 7.46 | 186% |
| Revenue | 1.24B | 7.54B | 16% |
| Total Cash | 73.7M | 1.57B | 5% |
| Total Debt | 684M | 3.57B | 19% |
CSNVF | IRLCF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 36 | 39 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 27 Undervalued | 3 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 92 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 38 | 78 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 54 | 58 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 54 | 9 | |
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.
IRLCF's Valuation (3) in the null industry is in the same range as CSNVF (27). This means that IRLCF’s stock grew similarly to CSNVF’s over the last 12 months.
IRLCF's Profit vs Risk Rating (92) in the null industry is in the same range as CSNVF (100). This means that IRLCF’s stock grew similarly to CSNVF’s over the last 12 months.
CSNVF's SMR Rating (38) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for IRLCF (78). This means that CSNVF’s stock grew somewhat faster than IRLCF’s over the last 12 months.
CSNVF's Price Growth Rating (54) in the null industry is in the same range as IRLCF (58). This means that CSNVF’s stock grew similarly to IRLCF’s over the last 12 months.
IRLCF's P/E Growth Rating (9) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CSNVF (54). This means that IRLCF’s stock grew somewhat faster than CSNVF’s over the last 12 months.
| CSNVF | IRLCF | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 35% | N/A |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 32% | N/A |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 27% | 2 days ago 12% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 31% | 2 days ago 11% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Declines ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 14% | N/A |
CSNVF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that CSNVF and ARKAF have been poorly correlated (+33% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CSNVF and ARKAF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CSNVF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CSNVF | 100% | N/A | ||
| ARKAF - CSNVF | 33% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| ADKIL - CSNVF | 30% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| IRLCF - CSNVF | 25% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CSNVY - CSNVF | 10% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| EESE - CSNVF | 9% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
IRLCF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, IRLCF has been closely correlated with ADKIL. These tickers have moved in lockstep 80% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is a high statistical probability that if IRLCF jumps, then ADKIL could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To IRLCF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IRLCF | 100% | N/A | ||
| ADKIL - IRLCF | 80% Closely correlated | N/A | ||
| CSNVY - IRLCF | 26% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CSNVF - IRLCF | 25% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| GURE - IRLCF | 23% Poorly correlated | -0.62% | ||
| IMCDY - IRLCF | 22% Poorly correlated | -1.57% | ||
More | ||||