EIHDF
Price
$0.81
Change
+$0.08 (+10.96%)
Updated
Jun 24 closing price
Capitalization
622.65M
GLXZ
Price
$2.82
Change
+$0.01 (+0.36%)
Updated
Jun 26 closing price
Capitalization
65.98M
Interact to see
Advertisement

EIHDF vs GLXZ

Header iconEIHDF vs GLXZ Comparison
Open Charts EIHDF vs GLXZBanner chart's image
888 Holdings
Price$0.81
Change+$0.08 (+10.96%)
Volume$110
Capitalization622.65M
Galaxy Gaming
Price$2.82
Change+$0.01 (+0.36%)
Volume$41.71K
Capitalization65.98M
EIHDF vs GLXZ Comparison Chart in %
Loading...
GLXZ
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
EIHDF vs. GLXZ commentary
Jun 27, 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 EIHDF is a Hold and GLXZ is a Hold.

Interact to see
Advertisement
COMPARISON
Comparison
Jun 27, 2025
Stock price -- (EIHDF: $0.81 vs. GLXZ: $2.82)
Brand notoriety: EIHDF and GLXZ are both not notable
Both companies represent the Casinos/Gaming industry
Current volume relative to the 65-day Moving Average: EIHDF: 4% vs. GLXZ: 155%
Market capitalization -- EIHDF: $622.65M vs. GLXZ: $65.98M
EIHDF [@Casinos/Gaming] is valued at $622.65M. GLXZ’s [@Casinos/Gaming] market capitalization is $65.98M. The market cap for tickers in the [@Casinos/Gaming] industry ranges from $38.96B to $0. The average market capitalization across the [@Casinos/Gaming] industry is $6.02B.

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).

EIHDF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileGLXZ’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).

  • EIHDF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
  • GLXZ’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
According to our system of comparison, EIHDF is a better buy in the long-term than GLXZ.

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.

GLXZ’s TA Score shows that 5 TA indicator(s) are bullish.

  • GLXZ’s TA Score: 5 bullish, 3 bearish.

Price Growth

EIHDF (@Casinos/Gaming) experienced а +11.36% price change this week, while GLXZ (@Casinos/Gaming) price change was +1.44% for the same time period.

The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Casinos/Gaming industry was +2.03%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +4.54%, and the average quarterly price growth was +8.09%.

Reported Earning Dates

EIHDF is expected to report earnings on Apr 02, 2025.

GLXZ is expected to report earnings on May 12, 2025.

Industries' Descriptions

@Casinos/Gaming (+2.03% weekly)

Casinos/Gaming includes companies that operate casinos, gaming services, horse racing and harness racing facilities. Think Las Vegas Sands Corp., MGM Resorts International and Wynn Resorts, Ltd. In periods of strong economic growth, consumers tend to spend on discretionary/leisure activities like gambling or games; but consumption is likely to slow down when there’s economic sluggishness.

SUMMARIES
Loading...
FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
EIHDF($623M) has a higher market cap than GLXZ($66M). GLXZ has higher P/E ratio than EIHDF: GLXZ (125.00) vs EIHDF (11.25). EIHDF YTD gains are higher at: 8.364 vs. GLXZ (1.952). EIHDF has higher annual earnings (EBITDA): 60.2M vs. GLXZ (9.48M). EIHDF has more cash in the bank: 300M vs. GLXZ (16.4M). EIHDF has less debt than GLXZ: EIHDF (19M) vs GLXZ (54.4M). EIHDF has higher revenues than GLXZ: EIHDF (541M) vs GLXZ (24.9M).
EIHDFGLXZEIHDF / GLXZ
Capitalization623M66M944%
EBITDA60.2M9.48M635%
Gain YTD8.3641.952428%
P/E Ratio11.25125.009%
Revenue541M24.9M2,173%
Total Cash300M16.4M1,829%
Total Debt19M54.4M35%
FUNDAMENTALS RATINGS
EIHDF vs GLXZ: Fundamental Ratings
EIHDF
GLXZ
OUTLOOK RATING
1..100
3890
VALUATION
overvalued / fair valued / undervalued
1..100
13
Undervalued
84
Overvalued
PROFIT vs RISK RATING
1..100
10067
SMR RATING
1..100
10053
PRICE GROWTH RATING
1..100
4945
P/E GROWTH RATING
1..100
8068
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.

EIHDF's Valuation (13) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for GLXZ (84). This means that EIHDF’s stock grew significantly faster than GLXZ’s over the last 12 months.

GLXZ's Profit vs Risk Rating (67) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for EIHDF (100). This means that GLXZ’s stock grew somewhat faster than EIHDF’s over the last 12 months.

GLXZ's SMR Rating (53) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for EIHDF (100). This means that GLXZ’s stock grew somewhat faster than EIHDF’s over the last 12 months.

GLXZ's Price Growth Rating (45) in the null industry is in the same range as EIHDF (49). This means that GLXZ’s stock grew similarly to EIHDF’s over the last 12 months.

GLXZ's P/E Growth Rating (68) in the null industry is in the same range as EIHDF (80). This means that GLXZ’s stock grew similarly to EIHDF’s over the last 12 months.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
GLXZ
RSI
ODDS (%)
N/A
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 1 day ago
66%
Momentum
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 1 day ago
59%
MACD
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 1 day ago
69%
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 1 day ago
56%
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 1 day ago
62%
Advances
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 1 day ago
65%
Declines
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
79%
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 1 day ago
63%
Aroon
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 1 day ago
80%
View a ticker or compare two or three
Interact to see
Advertisement
GLXZ
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
Interesting Tickers
1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
1 Day
STOCK / NAMEPrice $Chg $Chg %
MAKSY9.950.16
+1.63%
Marks & Spencer Group Plc
NRILY39.440.22
+0.56%
Nomura Research Institute Ltd.
ORZCF0.86N/A
-0.09%
Orezone Gold Corp.
PPRUY20.45-0.13
-0.63%
Kering SA
BLOZF0.45-0.02
-3.81%
Cannabix Technologies Inc.

EIHDF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that EIHDF and WYNMF have been poorly correlated (+21% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that EIHDF and WYNMF's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To EIHDF
1D Price
Change %
EIHDF100%
N/A
WYNMF - EIHDF
21%
Poorly correlated
N/A
EVVTY - EIHDF
13%
Poorly correlated
+0.07%
EVGGF - EIHDF
13%
Poorly correlated
-1.08%
GMVHF - EIHDF
12%
Poorly correlated
+5.02%
GEBHF - EIHDF
10%
Poorly correlated
N/A
More

GLXZ and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that GLXZ and MLCO have been poorly correlated (+20% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that GLXZ and MLCO's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To GLXZ
1D Price
Change %
GLXZ100%
+0.36%
MLCO - GLXZ
20%
Poorly correlated
+1.44%
EIHDF - GLXZ
5%
Poorly correlated
N/A
GIGNF - GLXZ
4%
Poorly correlated
N/A
GMVHF - GLXZ
3%
Poorly correlated
+5.02%
GMALF - GLXZ
1%
Poorly correlated
N/A
More