CYSNF vs FKWL
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 CYSNF is a Hold and FKWL 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).
CYSNF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileFKWL’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).
- CYSNF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- FKWL’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.
CYSNF’s TA Score shows that 3 TA indicator(s) are bullish while FKWL’s TA Score has 3 bullish TA indicator(s).
- CYSNF’s TA Score: 3 bullish, 5 bearish.
- FKWL’s TA Score: 3 bullish, 6 bearish.
Price Growth
CYSNF (@Telecommunications Equipment) experienced а -5.95% price change this week, while FKWL (@Telecommunications Equipment) price change was -6.86% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Telecommunications Equipment industry was -3.58%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +6.07%, and the average quarterly price growth was +25.87%.
Reported Earning Dates
FKWL is expected to report earnings on Feb 19, 2025.
Industries' Descriptions
@Telecommunications Equipment (-3.58% weekly)The Telecommunications Equipment industry produces voice and data communications equipment, which includes fiber optic delivery products, digital signal processors, high-speed voice, data and video delivery. Additionally, satellite systems, global positioning systems, wireless data systems, personal communications equipment, telephone handsets and payload equipment for satellites also fall into this category. Apple Inc., QUALCOMM Incorporated and Nokia are major global players in this segment.
| CYSNF | FKWL | CYSNF / FKWL | |
| Capitalization | 43.7M | 35.2M | 124% |
| EBITDA | -583.93K | -1.17M | 50% |
| Gain YTD | -22.271 | 20.649 | -108% |
| P/E Ratio | 3160.90 | 24.15 | 13,086% |
| Revenue | 7.37M | 47.4M | 16% |
| Total Cash | 16M | 32.7M | 49% |
| Total Debt | N/A | 0 | - |
CYSNF | FKWL | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 85 | 3 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 5 Undervalued | 51 Fair valued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 88 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 76 | 91 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 73 | 48 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 100 | 4 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 75 | 95 |
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.
CYSNF's Valuation (5) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for FKWL (51). This means that CYSNF’s stock grew somewhat faster than FKWL’s over the last 12 months.
FKWL's Profit vs Risk Rating (88) in the null industry is in the same range as CYSNF (100). This means that FKWL’s stock grew similarly to CYSNF’s over the last 12 months.
CYSNF's SMR Rating (76) in the null industry is in the same range as FKWL (91). This means that CYSNF’s stock grew similarly to FKWL’s over the last 12 months.
FKWL's Price Growth Rating (48) in the null industry is in the same range as CYSNF (73). This means that FKWL’s stock grew similarly to CYSNF’s over the last 12 months.
FKWL's P/E Growth Rating (4) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for CYSNF (100). This means that FKWL’s stock grew significantly faster than CYSNF’s over the last 12 months.
| CYSNF | FKWL | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 75% | 2 days ago 82% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 82% | 2 days ago 70% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 89% | 2 days ago 67% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 85% | 2 days ago 76% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 87% | 2 days ago 82% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | 23 days ago 66% | 9 days ago 71% |
| Declines ODDS (%) | 7 days ago 84% | 2 days ago 74% |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 90% | 2 days ago 77% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 72% | 2 days ago 89% |
| 1 Day | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| ETFs / NAME | Price $ | Chg $ | Chg % |
| LIT | 43.45 | -0.08 | -0.18% |
| Global X Lithium & Battery Tech ETF | |||
| DOCT | 39.81 | -0.12 | -0.30% |
| FT Vest US Equity Deep Bffr ETF Oct | |||
| IWR | 91.34 | -0.80 | -0.87% |
| iShares Russell Mid-Cap ETF | |||
| BDCZ | 19.01 | -0.23 | -1.20% |
| UBS ETRACS Wells Fargo® Busn Dev Co ETN | |||
| INDL | 64.59 | -1.48 | -2.24% |
| Direxion Daily MSCI India Bull 2x ETF | |||
CYSNF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that CYSNF and BEWFF have been poorly correlated (+23% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CYSNF and BEWFF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CYSNF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CYSNF | 100% | +0.52% | ||
| BEWFF - CYSNF | 23% Poorly correlated | -1.89% | ||
| ERIC - CYSNF | 20% Poorly correlated | -0.24% | ||
| ETCIA - CYSNF | 10% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| FKWL - CYSNF | 8% Poorly correlated | -0.49% | ||
| EUTLF - CYSNF | 5% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
FKWL and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that FKWL and CSCO have been poorly correlated (+29% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that FKWL and CSCO's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To FKWL | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FKWL | 100% | -0.49% | ||
| CSCO - FKWL | 29% Poorly correlated | +0.29% | ||
| VISL - FKWL | 22% Poorly correlated | -0.55% | ||
| VSAT - FKWL | 22% Poorly correlated | -3.08% | ||
| BOXL - FKWL | 21% Poorly correlated | -6.07% | ||
| ITRN - FKWL | 21% Poorly correlated | +0.76% | ||
More | ||||