Advertisement
DSITF vs HLFDY
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 DSITF is a Hold and HLFDY is a Buy.
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).
DSITF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileHLFDY’s FA Score has 2 green FA rating(s).
- DSITF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- HLFDY’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 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.
DSITF’s TA Score shows that 2 TA indicator(s) are bullish while HLFDY’s TA Score has 4 bullish TA indicator(s).
- DSITF’s TA Score: 2 bullish, 5 bearish.
- HLFDY’s TA Score: 4 bullish, 3 bearish.
Price Growth
DSITF (@Specialty Stores) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while HLFDY (@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 +0.41%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -3.15%, and the average quarterly price growth was +2.50%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Specialty Stores (+0.41% 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.
| DSITF | HLFDY | DSITF / HLFDY | |
| Capitalization | 777M | 622M | 125% |
| EBITDA | -35M | 182M | -19% |
| Gain YTD | 23.729 | 23.810 | 100% |
| P/E Ratio | 12.94 | 15.17 | 85% |
| Revenue | 9.83B | 1.44B | 683% |
| Total Cash | 138M | 63.6M | 217% |
| Total Debt | 1.48B | 414M | 357% |
DSITF | HLFDY | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 90 | 30 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 13 Undervalued | 6 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 80 | 86 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 69 | 89 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 53 | 60 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 97 | 15 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 50 | 50 |
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.
HLFDY's Valuation (6) in the null industry is in the same range as DSITF (13). This means that HLFDY’s stock grew similarly to DSITF’s over the last 12 months.
DSITF's Profit vs Risk Rating (80) in the null industry is in the same range as HLFDY (86). This means that DSITF’s stock grew similarly to HLFDY’s over the last 12 months.
DSITF's SMR Rating (69) in the null industry is in the same range as HLFDY (89). This means that DSITF’s stock grew similarly to HLFDY’s over the last 12 months.
DSITF's Price Growth Rating (53) in the null industry is in the same range as HLFDY (60). This means that DSITF’s stock grew similarly to HLFDY’s over the last 12 months.
HLFDY's P/E Growth Rating (15) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for DSITF (97). This means that HLFDY’s stock grew significantly faster than DSITF’s over the last 12 months.
| DSITF | HLFDY | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 40% | 2 days ago 50% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 60% | 2 days ago 55% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | N/A | 2 days ago 55% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 53% | 2 days ago 50% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 55% | 2 days ago 51% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Declines ODDS (%) | 10 days ago 38% | N/A |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 56% | 2 days ago 30% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 53% | 2 days ago 37% |
Advertisement
DSITF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that DSITF and JUMSF have been poorly correlated (+25% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that DSITF and JUMSF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To DSITF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DSITF | 100% | N/A | ||
| JUMSF - DSITF | 25% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| DFRYF - DSITF | 8% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| HLFDY - DSITF | 3% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| IHCPF - DSITF | 1% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CZASF - DSITF | 1% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
HLFDY and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that HLFDY and DSITF have been poorly correlated (+3% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that HLFDY and DSITF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To HLFDY | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HLFDY | 100% | N/A | ||
| DSITF - HLFDY | 3% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| GPGNF - HLFDY | 3% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CZASF - HLFDY | -0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| IHCPF - HLFDY | -0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| DFRYF - HLFDY | -1% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||