Advertisement
CWLPF vs RLBY
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 CWLPF is a Hold and RLBY 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).
CWLPF’s FA Score shows that 2 FA rating(s) are green whileRLBY’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).
- CWLPF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
- RLBY’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 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.
CWLPF’s TA Score shows that 6 TA indicator(s) are bullish while RLBY’s TA Score has 5 bullish TA indicator(s).
- CWLPF’s TA Score: 6 bullish, 3 bearish.
- RLBY’s TA Score: 5 bullish, 3 bearish.
Price Growth
CWLPF (@Other Consumer Services) experienced а +8.00% price change this week, while RLBY (@Other Consumer Services) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Other Consumer Services industry was +6.77%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +12.63%, and the average quarterly price growth was +3.26%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Other Consumer Services (+6.77% 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.
| CWLPF | RLBY | CWLPF / RLBY | |
| Capitalization | 15M | 13.4M | 112% |
| EBITDA | 3.37M | -547K | -616% |
| Gain YTD | -37.614 | -35.647 | 106% |
| P/E Ratio | 37.21 | N/A | - |
| Revenue | 94.7M | 22.1M | 429% |
| Total Cash | 15.4M | 262K | 5,878% |
| Total Debt | 6.05M | 70K | 8,641% |
CWLPF | RLBY | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 32 Undervalued | 49 Fair valued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 89 | 94 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 79 | 38 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 3 | 10 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 50 | 44 |
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.
CWLPF's Valuation (32) in the null industry is in the same range as RLBY (49). This means that CWLPF’s stock grew similarly to RLBY’s over the last 12 months.
CWLPF's Profit vs Risk Rating (100) in the null industry is in the same range as RLBY (100). This means that CWLPF’s stock grew similarly to RLBY’s over the last 12 months.
CWLPF's SMR Rating (89) in the null industry is in the same range as RLBY (94). This means that CWLPF’s stock grew similarly to RLBY’s over the last 12 months.
RLBY's Price Growth Rating (38) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CWLPF (79). This means that RLBY’s stock grew somewhat faster than CWLPF’s over the last 12 months.
CWLPF's P/E Growth Rating (3) in the null industry is in the same range as RLBY (10). This means that CWLPF’s stock grew similarly to RLBY’s over the last 12 months.
| CWLPF | RLBY | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 62% | 4 days ago 88% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 41% | 4 days ago 82% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 47% | 4 days ago 79% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 52% | 4 days ago 78% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 54% | 4 days ago 72% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 68% | 4 days ago 69% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | 7 days ago 68% | N/A |
| Declines ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 51% | 4 days ago 90% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 75% | 4 days ago 76% |
Advertisement
CWLPF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that CWLPF and RANJF have been poorly correlated (+26% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CWLPF and RANJF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CWLPF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CWLPF | 100% | +7.98% | ||
| RANJF - CWLPF | 26% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| AHEXY - CWLPF | 5% Poorly correlated | +0.50% | ||
| RANJY - CWLPF | 5% Poorly correlated | +0.92% | ||
| RLBY - CWLPF | 2% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| HAYPY - CWLPF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
RLBY and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that RLBY and MPGPF have been poorly correlated (+6% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that RLBY and MPGPF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To RLBY | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RLBY | 100% | N/A | ||
| MPGPF - RLBY | 6% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CWLPF - RLBY | 2% Poorly correlated | +7.98% | ||
| HAYPY - RLBY | 1% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| FLNCF - RLBY | -0% Poorly correlated | -46.10% | ||
| RANJY - RLBY | -1% Poorly correlated | +0.92% | ||
More | ||||