DNACF vs EBYH
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 DNACF is a StrongSell and EBYH is a StrongSell.
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).
DNACF’s FA Score shows that 2 FA rating(s) are green whileEBYH’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- DNACF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
- EBYH’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 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.
DNACF’s TA Score shows that 2 TA indicator(s) are bullish while EBYH’s TA Score has 2 bullish TA indicator(s).
- DNACF’s TA Score: 2 bullish, 3 bearish.
- EBYH’s TA Score: 2 bullish, 4 bearish.
Price Growth
DNACF (@Packaged Software) experienced а +0.30% price change this week, while EBYH (@Packaged Software) price change was -2.53% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Packaged Software industry was +2.25%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +14.82%, and the average quarterly price growth was +16.20%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Packaged Software (+2.25% weekly)Packaged software comprises multiple software programs bundled together and sold as a group. For example, Microsoft Office includes multiple applications such as Excel, Word, and PowerPoint. In some cases, buying a bundled product is cheaper than purchasing each item individually[s20] . Microsoft Corporation, Oracle Corp. and Adobe are some major American packaged software makers.
| DNACF | EBYH | DNACF / EBYH | |
| Capitalization | 1.38B | 1.78M | 77,242% |
| EBITDA | 15.2B | N/A | - |
| Gain YTD | 74.843 | -1.887 | -3,966% |
| P/E Ratio | 23.26 | N/A | - |
| Revenue | 133B | N/A | - |
| Total Cash | 103B | N/A | - |
| Total Debt | 45B | N/A | - |
DNACF | EBYH | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 82 | 89 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 13 Undervalued | 52 Fair valued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 92 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 97 | 100 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 36 | 53 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 4 | 100 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 50 | 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.
DNACF's Valuation (13) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for EBYH (52). This means that DNACF’s stock grew somewhat faster than EBYH’s over the last 12 months.
DNACF's Profit vs Risk Rating (92) in the null industry is in the same range as EBYH (100). This means that DNACF’s stock grew similarly to EBYH’s over the last 12 months.
DNACF's SMR Rating (97) in the null industry is in the same range as EBYH (100). This means that DNACF’s stock grew similarly to EBYH’s over the last 12 months.
DNACF's Price Growth Rating (36) in the null industry is in the same range as EBYH (53). This means that DNACF’s stock grew similarly to EBYH’s over the last 12 months.
DNACF's P/E Growth Rating (4) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for EBYH (100). This means that DNACF’s stock grew significantly faster than EBYH’s over the last 12 months.
| DNACF | EBYH | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | N/A | 2 days ago 50% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 53% | 2 days ago 69% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 40% | 2 days ago 74% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 39% | 2 days ago 73% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 40% | 2 days ago 62% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 36% | 2 days ago 66% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Declines ODDS (%) | 10 days ago 53% | N/A |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | N/A | 2 days ago 57% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 25% | 2 days ago 49% |
DNACF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that DNACF and RADLF have been poorly correlated (+32% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that DNACF and RADLF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To DNACF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DNACF | 100% | N/A | ||
| RADLF - DNACF | 32% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| EXSPF - DNACF | 32% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| PSSWF - DNACF | 31% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| PANW - DNACF | 28% Poorly correlated | -0.62% | ||
| BAND - DNACF | 26% Poorly correlated | -1.94% | ||
More | ||||
EBYH and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that EBYH and FBSFF have been poorly correlated (+30% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that EBYH and FBSFF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To EBYH | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EBYH | 100% | N/A | ||
| FBSFF - EBYH | 30% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| MRT - EBYH | 25% Poorly correlated | +15.11% | ||
| LVWD - EBYH | 20% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| DGNOF - EBYH | 10% Poorly correlated | +0.80% | ||
| DNACF - EBYH | 8% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||