Advertisement
CTMLF vs HWGG
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 HWGG 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 whileHWGG’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- CTMLF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- HWGG’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
Price Growth
CTMLF (@Other Consumer Services) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while HWGG (@Other Consumer Services) price change was -52.55% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Other Consumer Services industry was +0.64%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +8.08%, and the average quarterly price growth was -5.92%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Other Consumer Services (+0.64% 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 | HWGG | CTMLF / HWGG | |
| Capitalization | 2.04B | 5B | 41% |
| EBITDA | 86.8M | -3.47M | -2,501% |
| Gain YTD | 8.399 | 168.792 | 5% |
| P/E Ratio | 92.59 | N/A | - |
| Revenue | 508M | 389K | 130,591% |
| Total Cash | 142M | 1.16M | 12,273% |
| Total Debt | 48.4M | 37K | 130,811% |
CTMLF | HWGG | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 42 | 92 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 97 Overvalued | 98 Overvalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 91 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 78 | 100 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 73 | 34 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 17 | 100 | |
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.
CTMLF's Valuation (97) in the null industry is in the same range as HWGG (98). This means that CTMLF’s stock grew similarly to HWGG’s over the last 12 months.
CTMLF's Profit vs Risk Rating (91) in the null industry is in the same range as HWGG (100). This means that CTMLF’s stock grew similarly to HWGG’s over the last 12 months.
CTMLF's SMR Rating (78) in the null industry is in the same range as HWGG (100). This means that CTMLF’s stock grew similarly to HWGG’s over the last 12 months.
HWGG's Price Growth Rating (34) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CTMLF (73). This means that HWGG’s stock grew somewhat faster than CTMLF’s over the last 12 months.
CTMLF's P/E Growth Rating (17) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for HWGG (100). This means that CTMLF’s stock grew significantly faster than HWGG’s over the last 12 months.
| RSI ODDS (%) |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) |
| Momentum ODDS (%) |
| MACD ODDS (%) |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) |
| Advances ODDS (%) |
| Declines ODDS (%) |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) |
| Aroon ODDS (%) |
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 | +0.57% | ||
| HWGG - CTMLF | 1% Poorly correlated | -51.45% | ||
| DRTGF - CTMLF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| FGETF - CTMLF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
HWGG and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that HWGG and EDDRF have been poorly correlated (+7% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that HWGG and EDDRF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To HWGG | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HWGG | 100% | -51.45% | ||
| EDDRF - HWGG | 7% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| DRTGF - HWGG | 5% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| FGETF - HWGG | 5% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| FTDR - HWGG | 1% Poorly correlated | -0.40% | ||
| CTMLF - HWGG | 1% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||