Advertisement
CTMLF vs GDDFF
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 GDDFF 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 whileGDDFF’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- CTMLF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- GDDFF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 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 5 TA indicator(s) are bullish while GDDFF’s TA Score has 6 bullish TA indicator(s).
- CTMLF’s TA Score: 5 bullish, 2 bearish.
- GDDFF’s TA Score: 6 bullish, 4 bearish.
Price Growth
CTMLF (@Consumer Sundries) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while GDDFF (@Personnel Services) price change was +37.41% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Consumer Sundries industry was +8.76%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +45.96%, and the average quarterly price growth was +26.11%.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Personnel Services industry was -1.44%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -0.81%, and the average quarterly price growth was +272.64%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Consumer Sundries (+8.76% weekly)Consumer sundries companies make products that usually do not have another classification, such as lawn and garden products, pest-control products, pet food and pet products like leashes, collars, and harnesses. Central Garden & Pet Company and Dogness (International) Corporation are examples of companies operating in this industry.
@Personnel Services (-1.44% weekly)Personnel Services comprise companies that provide staffing and human resources management solutions for businesses. Each company might be involved in one or more types of recruitment or employee solutions such as permanent or temporary staffing, career consulting, outsourcing, administrative services and many more. Some personnel services companies cater to large businesses, while some specialize in providing services to small/medium-sized organizations. These specialized services potentially expedite the process of getting the ‘right’ candidates and/or training them to meet the requirements of a business process. Some of the companies also cover other critical areas like internal auditing for a company. Robert Half International Inc., ManpowerGroup Inc. and Insperity, Inc. are examples of companies in the personnel services industry.
| CTMLF | GDDFF | CTMLF / GDDFF | |
| Capitalization | 1.55B | 21.4M | 7,248% |
| EBITDA | 178M | 6.21M | 2,865% |
| Gain YTD | 16.114 | -25.887 | -62% |
| P/E Ratio | 31.62 | N/A | - |
| Revenue | 708M | 130M | 545% |
| Total Cash | 135M | 16.9M | 799% |
| Total Debt | 38.8M | 52.2M | 74% |
CTMLF | GDDFF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 98 | 84 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 96 Overvalued | 42 Fair valued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 80 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 79 | 100 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 52 | 36 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 19 | 100 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 21 | 50 |
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.
GDDFF's Valuation (42) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CTMLF (96). This means that GDDFF’s stock grew somewhat faster than CTMLF’s over the last 12 months.
CTMLF's Profit vs Risk Rating (80) in the null industry is in the same range as GDDFF (100). This means that CTMLF’s stock grew similarly to GDDFF’s over the last 12 months.
CTMLF's SMR Rating (79) in the null industry is in the same range as GDDFF (100). This means that CTMLF’s stock grew similarly to GDDFF’s over the last 12 months.
GDDFF's Price Growth Rating (36) in the null industry is in the same range as CTMLF (52). This means that GDDFF’s stock grew similarly to CTMLF’s over the last 12 months.
CTMLF's P/E Growth Rating (19) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for GDDFF (100). This means that CTMLF’s stock grew significantly faster than GDDFF’s over the last 12 months.
| CTMLF | GDDFF | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 33% | 2 days ago 87% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 14% | 2 days ago 74% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 27% | 2 days ago 40% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 7% | 2 days ago 35% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 12% | 2 days ago 44% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 12% | 2 days ago 46% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | N/A | 22 days ago 67% |
| Declines ODDS (%) | N/A | 9 days ago 73% |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 25% | 2 days ago 79% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | N/A | 2 days ago 39% |
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 | +0.14% | ||
| HWGG - CTMLF | 1% Poorly correlated | +16.67% | ||
| DRTGF - CTMLF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| FGETF - CTMLF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
GDDFF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that GDDFF and FGETF have been poorly correlated (+0% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that GDDFF and FGETF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To GDDFF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GDDFF | 100% | N/A | ||
| FGETF - GDDFF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CTMLF - GDDFF | -0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| TCOM - GDDFF | -0% Poorly correlated | +0.14% | ||
| DRTGF - GDDFF | -2% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| FTDR - GDDFF | -5% Poorly correlated | -3.05% | ||
More | ||||