Advertisement
FDCHF vs HYPOF
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 FDCHF is a Hold and HYPOF 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).
FDCHF’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whileHYPOF’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- FDCHF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
- HYPOF’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.
FDCHF’s TA Score shows that 2 TA indicator(s) are bullish.
- FDCHF’s TA Score: 2 bullish, 0 bearish.
Price Growth
FDCHF (@Savings Banks) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while HYPOF (@Savings Banks) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Savings Banks industry was +0.17%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +3.70%, and the average quarterly price growth was +18.39%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Savings Banks (+0.17% weekly)A savings bank primary function is to take deposits and paying interest on those deposits. Originating in Europe during the 18th century, these banks were generally introduced to incentivize people of all stripes to save money and park them with banks. By the 1990s, the internet ushered in online savings banks that allowed savers to deposit/transact with banks digitally, without requiring to visit a branch office. Savings banks have potentially encouraged lower-income population to save and have access to a financial institution to earn interest on their money. New York Community Bancorp, Inc, Webster Financial Corporation, Washington Federal, Inc. are examples of savings banks.
| FDCHF | HYPOF | FDCHF / HYPOF | |
| Capitalization | 582M | 1.15B | 51% |
| EBITDA | N/A | 63.5M | - |
| Gain YTD | -2.548 | -29.552 | 9% |
| P/E Ratio | 1135.22 | 85.01 | 1,335% |
| Revenue | N/A | 595M | - |
| Total Cash | N/A | 86.9M | - |
| Total Debt | N/A | 171M | - |
FDCHF | HYPOF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 49 | 40 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 99 Overvalued | 96 Overvalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 85 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 100 | 100 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 51 | 53 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 100 | 100 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | n/a | 30 |
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.
HYPOF's Valuation (96) in the null industry is in the same range as FDCHF (99). This means that HYPOF’s stock grew similarly to FDCHF’s over the last 12 months.
FDCHF's Profit vs Risk Rating (85) in the null industry is in the same range as HYPOF (100). This means that FDCHF’s stock grew similarly to HYPOF’s over the last 12 months.
FDCHF's SMR Rating (100) in the null industry is in the same range as HYPOF (100). This means that FDCHF’s stock grew similarly to HYPOF’s over the last 12 months.
FDCHF's Price Growth Rating (51) in the null industry is in the same range as HYPOF (53). This means that FDCHF’s stock grew similarly to HYPOF’s over the last 12 months.
FDCHF's P/E Growth Rating (100) in the null industry is in the same range as HYPOF (100). This means that FDCHF’s stock grew similarly to HYPOF’s over the last 12 months.
| FDCHF | HYPOF | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| MACD ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 1 day ago 27% | 1 day ago 13% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 1 day ago 28% | 1 day ago 11% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Declines ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
Advertisement
FDCHF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, FDCHF has been loosely correlated with CSASF. These tickers have moved in lockstep 50% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if FDCHF jumps, then CSASF could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To FDCHF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FDCHF | 100% | N/A | ||
| CSASF - FDCHF | 50% Loosely correlated | N/A | ||
| BCVVF - FDCHF | 25% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| LZRFY - FDCHF | 6% Poorly correlated | +2.79% | ||
| KGTHY - FDCHF | 1% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| HYPOF - FDCHF | -1% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
HYPOF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that HYPOF and MAURY have been poorly correlated (+-0% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that HYPOF and MAURY's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To HYPOF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HYPOF | 100% | N/A | ||
| MAURY - HYPOF | -0% Poorly correlated | +0.84% | ||
| FDCHF - HYPOF | -1% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| KGTHY - HYPOF | -4% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| LZRFY - HYPOF | -10% Poorly correlated | +2.79% |