CTNGY vs GNSPF
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 CTNGY is a Buy and GNSPF is a Buy.
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).
CTNGY’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileGNSPF’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- CTNGY’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- GNSPF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
Price Growth
CTNGY (@Engineering & Construction) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while GNSPF (@Engineering & Construction) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Engineering & Construction industry was +0.30%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +2.76%, and the average quarterly price growth was +14.61%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Engineering & Construction (+0.30% weekly)Engineering & Construction includes companies that engage in non-residential construction and contract services, including ventilation, heating and air conditioning (HVAC) services. The level/value of construction & engineering activity is one of the potentially relevant indicators of the health of businesses, and hence of the overall economy. Some of the large-cap U.S. companies in this industry include Jacobs Engineering Group Inc,, AECOM and Quanta Services, Inc.
| CTNGY | GNSPF | CTNGY / GNSPF | |
| Capitalization | 356M | 301M | 118% |
| EBITDA | 57.4M | N/A | - |
| Gain YTD | -31.455 | 115.278 | -27% |
| P/E Ratio | 7.38 | 22.42 | 33% |
| Revenue | 1.31B | N/A | - |
| Total Cash | N/A | N/A | - |
| Total Debt | N/A | N/A | - |
| RSI ODDS (%) |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) |
| Momentum ODDS (%) |
| MACD ODDS (%) |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) |
| Advances ODDS (%) |
| Declines ODDS (%) |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) |
| Aroon ODDS (%) |
CTNGY and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that CTNGY and RELT have been poorly correlated (+33% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CTNGY and RELT's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CTNGY | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CTNGY | 100% | N/A | ||
| RELT - CTNGY | 33% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| OPMXF - CTNGY | 10% Poorly correlated | +1.39% | ||
| WLGS - CTNGY | 3% Poorly correlated | -8.13% | ||
| MCDIF - CTNGY | 1% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| SLAAF - CTNGY | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
GNSPF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that GNSPF and MCDIF have been poorly correlated (+2% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that GNSPF and MCDIF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To GNSPF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GNSPF | 100% | N/A | ||
| MCDIF - GNSPF | 2% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CTNGY - GNSPF | -0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| AFXXF - GNSPF | -0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| SLAAF - GNSPF | -0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CIPI - GNSPF | -0% Poorly correlated | +3.78% | ||
More | ||||