Advertisement
EMLAF vs LBLCF
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 EMLAF is a Hold and LBLCF 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).
EMLAF’s FA Score shows that 2 FA rating(s) are green whileLBLCF’s FA Score has 2 green FA rating(s).
- EMLAF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
- LBLCF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
Price Growth
EMLAF (@Food Retail) experienced а +1.68% price change this week, while LBLCF (@Food Retail) price change was +6.11% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Food Retail industry was +0.47%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +0.35%, and the average quarterly price growth was +4.16%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Food Retail (+0.47% weekly)The food retail industry includes companies that sell food, beverage and household products. Items sold include grocery, gourmet food, fresh produce, and frozen food. Kroger Co., George Weston Ltd., Grocery Outlet Holding Corp., and Sprouts Farmers Markets, Inc. are examples of major food retailers. While e-commerce companies like Amazon have increasingly been ramping-up offerings in the food retail space, several traditional players have also been expanding their online presence to stand their ground against rising competition.
| EMLAF | LBLCF | EMLAF / LBLCF | |
| Capitalization | 6.78B | 27.9B | 24% |
| EBITDA | 2.28B | 6.46B | 35% |
| Gain YTD | 17.109 | 23.236 | 74% |
| P/E Ratio | 13.68 | 18.80 | 73% |
| Revenue | 30.5B | 58.1B | 52% |
| Total Cash | 221M | 1.74B | 13% |
| Total Debt | 7.27B | 18B | 40% |
EMLAF | LBLCF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 95 | 88 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 29 Undervalued | 94 Overvalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 40 | 2 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 59 | 44 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 42 | 40 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 14 | 17 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 5 | 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.
EMLAF's Valuation (29) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for LBLCF (94). This means that EMLAF’s stock grew somewhat faster than LBLCF’s over the last 12 months.
LBLCF's Profit vs Risk Rating (2) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for EMLAF (40). This means that LBLCF’s stock grew somewhat faster than EMLAF’s over the last 12 months.
LBLCF's SMR Rating (44) in the null industry is in the same range as EMLAF (59). This means that LBLCF’s stock grew similarly to EMLAF’s over the last 12 months.
LBLCF's Price Growth Rating (40) in the null industry is in the same range as EMLAF (42). This means that LBLCF’s stock grew similarly to EMLAF’s over the last 12 months.
EMLAF's P/E Growth Rating (14) in the null industry is in the same range as LBLCF (17). This means that EMLAF’s stock grew similarly to LBLCF’s over the last 12 months.
| RSI ODDS (%) |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) |
| Momentum ODDS (%) |
| MACD ODDS (%) |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) |
| Advances ODDS (%) |
| Declines ODDS (%) |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) |
| Aroon ODDS (%) |
Advertisement
EMLAF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that EMLAF and MTRAF have been poorly correlated (+28% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that EMLAF and MTRAF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To EMLAF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EMLAF | 100% | N/A | ||
| MTRAF - EMLAF | 28% Poorly correlated | -0.34% | ||
| JSAIY - EMLAF | 13% Poorly correlated | +0.59% | ||
| KKOYY - EMLAF | 12% Poorly correlated | -0.35% | ||
| DNOPY - EMLAF | 11% Poorly correlated | +1.93% | ||
| LBLCF - EMLAF | 10% Poorly correlated | +0.78% | ||
More | ||||
LBLCF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that LBLCF and WNGRF have been poorly correlated (+21% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that LBLCF and WNGRF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To LBLCF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LBLCF | 100% | +0.78% | ||
| WNGRF - LBLCF | 21% Poorly correlated | +2.43% | ||
| CRRFY - LBLCF | 20% Poorly correlated | -0.29% | ||
| MSS - LBLCF | 20% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| MTRAF - LBLCF | 20% Poorly correlated | -0.34% | ||
| JSAIY - LBLCF | 15% Poorly correlated | +0.59% | ||
More | ||||