Advertisement
CTMLF vs FGETF
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 CTMLF is a Hold and FGETF 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).
CTMLF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileFGETF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).
- CTMLF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- FGETF’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.
CTMLF’s TA Score shows that 2 TA indicator(s) are bullish while FGETF’s TA Score has 2 bullish TA indicator(s).
- CTMLF’s TA Score: 2 bullish, 0 bearish.
- FGETF’s TA Score: 2 bullish, 0 bearish.
Price Growth
CTMLF (@Other Consumer Services) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while FGETF (@Other Consumer Services) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Other Consumer Services industry was +3.18%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +0.34%, and the average quarterly price growth was -4.02%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Other Consumer Services (+3.18% weekly)Other consumer services include companies that provide consumer services, and are not classified elsewhere. Travel fare aggregators, hotel bookings, consumer-to-consumer or business-to-business sales platforms are some examples of services that can be clubbed into this category. Many of such services have expanded online. Booking Holdings Inc, The Priceline Group Inc, and eBay Inc. are some major operators in this segment.
| CTMLF | FGETF | CTMLF / FGETF | |
| Capitalization | 2.04B | 3.07B | 67% |
| EBITDA | 86.8M | 437M | 20% |
| Gain YTD | 11.219 | -43.909 | -26% |
| P/E Ratio | 92.59 | 97.81 | 95% |
| Revenue | 508M | 2.57B | 20% |
| Total Cash | 142M | 1.36B | 10% |
| Total Debt | 48.4M | 1.28B | 4% |
CTMLF | FGETF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 97 Overvalued | 16 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 74 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 78 | 87 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 57 | 83 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 12 | 90 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 50 | 30 |
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.
FGETF's Valuation (16) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for CTMLF (97). This means that FGETF’s stock grew significantly faster than CTMLF’s over the last 12 months.
FGETF's Profit vs Risk Rating (74) in the null industry is in the same range as CTMLF (100). This means that FGETF’s stock grew similarly to CTMLF’s over the last 12 months.
CTMLF's SMR Rating (78) in the null industry is in the same range as FGETF (87). This means that CTMLF’s stock grew similarly to FGETF’s over the last 12 months.
CTMLF's Price Growth Rating (57) in the null industry is in the same range as FGETF (83). This means that CTMLF’s stock grew similarly to FGETF’s over the last 12 months.
CTMLF's P/E Growth Rating (12) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for FGETF (90). This means that CTMLF’s stock grew significantly faster than FGETF’s over the last 12 months.
| CTMLF | FGETF | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 5 days ago 20% | N/A |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 5 days ago 23% | N/A |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 5 days ago 14% | 5 days ago 13% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 5 days ago 13% | 5 days ago 13% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Declines ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
Advertisement
CTMLF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that CTMLF and HSWLF have been poorly correlated (+3% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CTMLF and HSWLF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CTMLF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CTMLF | 100% | N/A | ||
| HSWLF - CTMLF | 3% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| TCOM - CTMLF | 1% Poorly correlated | -0.64% | ||
| HWGG - CTMLF | 1% Poorly correlated | -2.08% | ||
| DRTGF - CTMLF | 0% Poorly correlated | -0.25% | ||
| FGETF - CTMLF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
FGETF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that FGETF and HWGG have been poorly correlated (+5% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that FGETF and HWGG's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To FGETF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FGETF | 100% | N/A | ||
| HWGG - FGETF | 5% Poorly correlated | -2.08% | ||
| TCOM - FGETF | 2% Poorly correlated | -0.64% | ||
| CTMLF - FGETF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| GDDFF - FGETF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| EDDRF - FGETF | -0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||