CZASF vs GPGNF
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 CZASF is a Hold and GPGNF 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).
CZASF’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whileGPGNF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).
- CZASF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
- GPGNF’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.
CZASF’s TA Score shows that 1 TA indicator(s) are bullish.
- CZASF’s TA Score: 1 bullish, 0 bearish.
Price Growth
CZASF (@Specialty Stores) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while GPGNF (@Specialty Stores) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Specialty Stores industry was +1.91%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +0.66%, and the average quarterly price growth was -1.29%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Specialty Stores (+1.91% weekly)The specialty stores sector includes companies dedicated to the sale of retail products focused on a single product category, such as clothing, carpet, books, or office supplies. A specialty store could face intense competition from big-box departmental chains, and therefore offering an adequate collection of the product type it specializes in is key in maintaining/growing its market.
| CZASF | GPGNF | CZASF / GPGNF | |
| Capitalization | 199M | 1.92B | 10% |
| EBITDA | -33.49M | 6.51B | -1% |
| Gain YTD | 0.000 | 0.000 | - |
| P/E Ratio | N/A | 12.21 | - |
| Revenue | 21B | 30.2B | 70% |
| Total Cash | 745M | 3.7B | 20% |
| Total Debt | 18.1B | 15.5B | 117% |
CZASF | GPGNF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 52 Fair valued | 65 Fair valued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 99 | 80 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 93 | 70 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 89 | 26 | |
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.
CZASF's Valuation (52) in the null industry is in the same range as GPGNF (65). This means that CZASF’s stock grew similarly to GPGNF’s over the last 12 months.
CZASF's Profit vs Risk Rating (100) in the null industry is in the same range as GPGNF (100). This means that CZASF’s stock grew similarly to GPGNF’s over the last 12 months.
GPGNF's SMR Rating (80) in the null industry is in the same range as CZASF (99). This means that GPGNF’s stock grew similarly to CZASF’s over the last 12 months.
GPGNF's Price Growth Rating (70) in the null industry is in the same range as CZASF (93). This means that GPGNF’s stock grew similarly to CZASF’s over the last 12 months.
GPGNF's P/E Growth Rating (26) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CZASF (89). This means that GPGNF’s stock grew somewhat faster than CZASF’s over the last 12 months.
| CZASF | GPGNF | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 12 days ago 10% | N/A |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 12 days ago 8% | 12 days ago 12% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 12 days ago 7% | 12 days ago 12% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Declines ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| 1 Day | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| MFs / NAME | Price $ | Chg $ | Chg % |
| PGFIX | 76.86 | 0.95 | +1.25% |
| Virtus Silvant Focused Growth Inst | |||
| BILSX | 9.67 | 0.06 | +0.62% |
| BlackRock U.S. Insights Lon/Shr Eq Ins | |||
| MKVGX | 13.28 | 0.08 | +0.61% |
| MFS International Large Cap Value R4 | |||
| KCSIX | 13.59 | 0.07 | +0.52% |
| Knights of Columbus Small Cap I | |||
| IPMIX | 22.13 | 0.09 | +0.41% |
| Voya Index Plus MidCap Port I | |||
CZASF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that CZASF and CMEIF have been poorly correlated (+30% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CZASF and CMEIF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CZASF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CZASF | 100% | N/A | ||
| CMEIF - CZASF | 30% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| DFRYF - CZASF | 22% Poorly correlated | +12.11% | ||
| DUFRY - CZASF | 5% Poorly correlated | +8.18% | ||
| DSITF - CZASF | 1% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| HNORY - CZASF | 1% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
GPGNF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that GPGNF and IHCPF have been poorly correlated (+21% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that GPGNF and IHCPF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To GPGNF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPGNF | 100% | N/A | ||
| IHCPF - GPGNF | 21% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| FKRAF - GPGNF | 3% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| HLFDY - GPGNF | 3% Poorly correlated | +10.10% | ||
| CZASF - GPGNF | 1% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| DFRYF - GPGNF | -0% Poorly correlated | +12.11% | ||
More | ||||