CX
Price
$6.78
Change
-$0.21 (-3.00%)
Updated
Jun 13, 04:59 PM (EDT)
Capitalization
13.14B
41 days until earnings call
HCMLF
Price
$117.15
Change
-$0.85 (-0.72%)
Updated
Jun 12 closing price
Capitalization
39.08B
Interact to see
Advertisement

CX vs HCMLF

Header iconCX vs HCMLF Comparison
Open Charts CX vs HCMLFBanner chart's image
Cemex SAB de CV
Price$6.78
Change-$0.21 (-3.00%)
Volume$67.4K
Capitalization13.14B
HOLCIM
Price$117.15
Change-$0.85 (-0.72%)
Volume$700
Capitalization39.08B
CX vs HCMLF Comparison Chart
Loading...
CX
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
CX vs. HCMLF commentary
Jun 13, 2025

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 CX is a Hold and HCMLF is a Hold.

Interact to see
Advertisement
COMPARISON
Comparison
Jun 13, 2025
Stock price -- (CX: $6.99 vs. HCMLF: $117.15)
Brand notoriety: CX: Notable vs. HCMLF: Not notable
Both companies represent the Construction Materials industry
Current volume relative to the 65-day Moving Average: CX: 91% vs. HCMLF: 36%
Market capitalization -- CX: $13.14B vs. HCMLF: $39.08B
CX [@Construction Materials] is valued at $13.14B. HCMLF’s [@Construction Materials] market capitalization is $39.08B. The market cap for tickers in the [@Construction Materials] industry ranges from $59.37B to $0. The average market capitalization across the [@Construction Materials] industry is $8.92B.

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).

CX’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileHCMLF’s FA Score has 3 green FA rating(s).

  • CX’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
  • HCMLF’s FA Score: 3 green, 2 red.
According to our system of comparison, HCMLF is a better buy in the long-term than CX.

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.

CX’s TA Score shows that 4 TA indicator(s) are bullish.

  • CX’s TA Score: 4 bullish, 5 bearish.

Price Growth

CX (@Construction Materials) experienced а +2.64% price change this week, while HCMLF (@Construction Materials) price change was +5.80% for the same time period.

The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Construction Materials industry was -0.73%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +1.43%, and the average quarterly price growth was +3.59%.

Reported Earning Dates

CX is expected to report earnings on Jul 24, 2025.

Industries' Descriptions

@Construction Materials (-0.73% weekly)

Many naturally occurring substances, such as clay, rocks, sand, and wood, even twigs and leaves have been used in construction material. Many man-made products are also in use. Vulcan Materials Co., Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. and Owens Corning Inc. are examples of construction material companies in the U.S. Performance of companies that extract or produce construction materials could at times depend on demand for residential and commercial buildings/real estate, and therefore in some cases could feel impacted by economic cycles.

SUMMARIES
Loading...
FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
HCMLF($39.1B) has a higher market cap than CX($13.1B). CX has higher P/E ratio than HCMLF: CX (73.74) vs HCMLF (10.44). CX YTD gains are higher at: 24.360 vs. HCMLF (19.724). HCMLF has higher annual earnings (EBITDA): 7.78B vs. CX (1.72B). HCMLF has more cash in the bank: 3.65B vs. CX (533M). CX has less debt than HCMLF: CX (9.16B) vs HCMLF (14.9B). HCMLF has higher revenues than CX: HCMLF (27.6B) vs CX (17B).
CXHCMLFCX / HCMLF
Capitalization13.1B39.1B34%
EBITDA1.72B7.78B22%
Gain YTD24.36019.724124%
P/E Ratio73.7410.44706%
Revenue17B27.6B62%
Total Cash533M3.65B15%
Total Debt9.16B14.9B61%
FUNDAMENTALS RATINGS
CX vs HCMLF: Fundamental Ratings
CX
HCMLF
OUTLOOK RATING
1..100
7829
VALUATION
overvalued / fair valued / undervalued
1..100
18
Undervalued
10
Undervalued
PROFIT vs RISK RATING
1..100
457
SMR RATING
1..100
6399
PRICE GROWTH RATING
1..100
4447
P/E GROWTH RATING
1..100
9824
SEASONALITY SCORE
1..100
n/an/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.

HCMLF's Valuation (10) in the null industry is in the same range as CX (18) in the Construction Materials industry. This means that HCMLF’s stock grew similarly to CX’s over the last 12 months.

HCMLF's Profit vs Risk Rating (7) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CX (45) in the Construction Materials industry. This means that HCMLF’s stock grew somewhat faster than CX’s over the last 12 months.

CX's SMR Rating (63) in the Construction Materials industry is somewhat better than the same rating for HCMLF (99) in the null industry. This means that CX’s stock grew somewhat faster than HCMLF’s over the last 12 months.

CX's Price Growth Rating (44) in the Construction Materials industry is in the same range as HCMLF (47) in the null industry. This means that CX’s stock grew similarly to HCMLF’s over the last 12 months.

HCMLF's P/E Growth Rating (24) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for CX (98) in the Construction Materials industry. This means that HCMLF’s stock grew significantly faster than CX’s over the last 12 months.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
CX
RSI
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
73%
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
74%
Momentum
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
68%
MACD
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
68%
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
75%
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
76%
Advances
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
76%
Declines
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 12 days ago
73%
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
68%
Aroon
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
75%
View a ticker or compare two or three
Interact to see
Advertisement
CX
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
Interesting Tickers
1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
1 Day
ETFs / NAMEPrice $Chg $Chg %
SDHY16.360.09
+0.54%
PGIM Short Duration High Yield Opportunities Fund
QTR32.060.14
+0.45%
Global X NASDAQ 100® Tail Risk ETF
IWL149.350.56
+0.38%
iShares Russell Top 200 ETF
NXN11.450.04
+0.35%
Nuveen NY SEL Tax-Free
XES68.02-0.03
-0.04%
SPDR® S&P Oil & Gas Equipment&Svcs ETF

HCMLF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that HCMLF and HCMLY have been poorly correlated (+28% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that HCMLF and HCMLY's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To HCMLF
1D Price
Change %
HCMLF100%
-0.72%
HCMLY - HCMLF
28%
Poorly correlated
+2.54%
JHX - HCMLF
20%
Poorly correlated
-0.70%
HDLMY - HCMLF
17%
Poorly correlated
+1.71%
CRH - HCMLF
12%
Poorly correlated
+1.68%
CX - HCMLF
11%
Poorly correlated
+0.43%
More