CTXAF vs RUBSF
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 CTXAF is a Hold and RUBSF 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).
CTXAF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileRUBSF’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- CTXAF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- RUBSF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
Price Growth
CTXAF (@Oil Refining/Marketing) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while RUBSF (@Oil Refining/Marketing) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Oil Refining/Marketing industry was -0.64%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -0.24%, and the average quarterly price growth was -8.23%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Oil Refining/Marketing (-0.64% weekly)The Oil Refining/Marketing segment includes companies that refine crude oil into a number of petroleum products, including gasoline, jet fuel and diesel, and then sell the usable products to the end users. These companies are involved in what’s called downstream operations in the oil business. They also engage in the marketing and distribution of crude oil and natural gas products. In other words, the downstream oil and gas business is focused on post-production processes of crude oil and natural gas. When oil prices slump, downstream businesses are hurt less or in some cases even benefit, since their purchase cost of crude oil goes down. Some of the biggest U.S. oil refining/marketing companies include Phillips 66, Marathon Petroleum Corporation and Valero Energy Corp.
| CTXAF | RUBSF | CTXAF / RUBSF | |
| Capitalization | 5.25B | 2.55B | 206% |
| EBITDA | 1.49B | 612M | 244% |
| Gain YTD | 0.000 | 8.945 | - |
| P/E Ratio | 10.16 | 9.01 | 113% |
| Revenue | 38.2B | 5.83B | 655% |
| Total Cash | 126M | 785M | 16% |
| Total Debt | 3.61B | 2.43B | 149% |
CTXAF | RUBSF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 20 Undervalued | 88 Overvalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 96 | 60 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 80 | 61 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 94 | 83 | |
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.
CTXAF's Valuation (20) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for RUBSF (88). This means that CTXAF’s stock grew significantly faster than RUBSF’s over the last 12 months.
CTXAF's Profit vs Risk Rating (100) in the null industry is in the same range as RUBSF (100). This means that CTXAF’s stock grew similarly to RUBSF’s over the last 12 months.
RUBSF's SMR Rating (60) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CTXAF (96). This means that RUBSF’s stock grew somewhat faster than CTXAF’s over the last 12 months.
RUBSF's Price Growth Rating (61) in the null industry is in the same range as CTXAF (80). This means that RUBSF’s stock grew similarly to CTXAF’s over the last 12 months.
RUBSF's P/E Growth Rating (83) in the null industry is in the same range as CTXAF (94). This means that RUBSF’s stock grew similarly to CTXAF’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 (%) |
CTXAF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that CTXAF and CLSZF have been poorly correlated (+21% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CTXAF and CLSZF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CTXAF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CTXAF | 100% | N/A | ||
| CLSZF - CTXAF | 21% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| NTOIY - CTXAF | 12% Poorly correlated | -1.71% | ||
| PKIUF - CTXAF | 7% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| HEOL - CTXAF | 6% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| RBSFY - CTXAF | 6% Poorly correlated | -2.21% | ||
More | ||||
RUBSF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that RUBSF and IDKOF have been poorly correlated (+23% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that RUBSF and IDKOF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To RUBSF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RUBSF | 100% | N/A | ||
| IDKOF - RUBSF | 23% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| RBSFY - RUBSF | 14% Poorly correlated | -2.21% | ||
| PKIUF - RUBSF | 8% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CTXAF - RUBSF | 4% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| OILRF - RUBSF | 4% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||