CTSDF vs EPAM
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 CTSDF is a Hold and EPAM 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).
CTSDF’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whileEPAM’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- CTSDF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
- EPAM’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.
EPAM’s TA Score shows that 6 TA indicator(s) are bullish.
- EPAM’s TA Score: 6 bullish, 4 bearish.
Price Growth
CTSDF (@Information Technology Services) experienced а -0.52% price change this week, while EPAM (@Information Technology Services) price change was -21.52% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Information Technology Services industry was -3.14%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +2.08%, and the average quarterly price growth was +22.08%.
Reported Earning Dates
EPAM is expected to report earnings on May 01, 2025.
Industries' Descriptions
@Information Technology Services (-3.14% weekly)The industry, whose total market cap runs into trillions, makes hardware/software that allows data to be stored, retrieved, transmitted, and manipulated on computers. With the ever-increasing relevance of data, the information technology (IT) industry has gained momentous growth over the years, and continues to thrive on innovation. Some of the behemoths in the industry are International Business Machines Corporation, Accenture, and VMware, Inc.
| CTSDF | EPAM | CTSDF / EPAM | |
| Capitalization | 739M | 11.9B | 6% |
| EBITDA | -42.01M | 655M | -6% |
| Gain YTD | 66.376 | -10.683 | -621% |
| P/E Ratio | N/A | 26.64 | - |
| Revenue | 2.56B | 4.64B | 55% |
| Total Cash | 180M | 2.06B | 9% |
| Total Debt | 308M | 165M | 187% |
CTSDF | EPAM | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | 63 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 36 Fair valued | 64 Fair valued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 67 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 96 | 58 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 36 | 63 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 99 | 91 | |
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.
CTSDF's Valuation (36) in the null industry is in the same range as EPAM (64) in the Information Technology Services industry. This means that CTSDF’s stock grew similarly to EPAM’s over the last 12 months.
CTSDF's Profit vs Risk Rating (67) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for EPAM (100) in the Information Technology Services industry. This means that CTSDF’s stock grew somewhat faster than EPAM’s over the last 12 months.
EPAM's SMR Rating (58) in the Information Technology Services industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CTSDF (96) in the null industry. This means that EPAM’s stock grew somewhat faster than CTSDF’s over the last 12 months.
CTSDF's Price Growth Rating (36) in the null industry is in the same range as EPAM (63) in the Information Technology Services industry. This means that CTSDF’s stock grew similarly to EPAM’s over the last 12 months.
EPAM's P/E Growth Rating (91) in the Information Technology Services industry is in the same range as CTSDF (99) in the null industry. This means that EPAM’s stock grew similarly to CTSDF’s over the last 12 months.
| EPAM | |
|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 67% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 72% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 60% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 58% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 66% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 68% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | 11 days ago 71% |
| Declines ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 70% |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 70% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 73% |
| 1 Day | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| ETFs / NAME | Price $ | Chg $ | Chg % |
| IBTH | 22.26 | 0.04 | +0.18% |
| iShares iBonds Dec 2027 Term Tr ETF | |||
| CVIE | 59.12 | -0.31 | -0.53% |
| Calvert International Responsible ETF | |||
| DJUL | 42.76 | -0.34 | -0.79% |
| FT Vest US Equity Deep Bffr ETF Jul | |||
| VOO | 551.75 | -9.55 | -1.70% |
| Vanguard S&P 500 ETF | |||
| CRUZ | 26.18 | -1.00 | -3.66% |
| Defiance Hotel, Airline, and Cruise ETF | |||
CTSDF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that CTSDF and CXGEF have been poorly correlated (+33% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CTSDF and CXGEF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CTSDF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CTSDF | 100% | -0.69% | ||
| CXGEF - CTSDF | 33% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| IBM - CTSDF | 30% Poorly correlated | -1.23% | ||
| EPAM - CTSDF | 29% Poorly correlated | -7.21% | ||
| FIS - CTSDF | 27% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| GIB - CTSDF | 27% Poorly correlated | -4.07% | ||
More | ||||
EPAM and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, EPAM has been loosely correlated with FLYW. These tickers have moved in lockstep 59% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if EPAM jumps, then FLYW could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To EPAM | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EPAM | 100% | -7.21% | ||
| FLYW - EPAM | 59% Loosely correlated | -5.76% | ||
| GLOB - EPAM | 53% Loosely correlated | -27.81% | ||
| CTSH - EPAM | 48% Loosely correlated | -3.05% | ||
| ACN - EPAM | 42% Loosely correlated | -5.35% | ||
| GDYN - EPAM | 41% Loosely correlated | +4.35% | ||
More | ||||