FQAL vs SEIC
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 FQAL is a StrongBuy and SEIC is a Hold.
SEIC | ||
|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 90 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 85 Overvalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 46 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 40 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 49 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 58 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 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.
| FQAL | SEIC | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | N/A | 3 days ago 65% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 68% | 3 days ago 66% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 74% | 3 days ago 43% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 5 days ago 87% | 3 days ago 43% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 74% | 3 days ago 52% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 85% | 3 days ago 47% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | 5 days ago 87% | 19 days ago 51% |
| Declines ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 75% | 3 days ago 54% |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 71% | N/A |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 85% | 3 days ago 48% |
| 1 Day | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| ETFs / NAME | Price $ | Chg $ | Chg % |
| THLV | 27.45 | -0.26 | -0.94% |
| THOR Equal Weight Low Volatility ETF | |||
| GK | 21.76 | -0.54 | -2.43% |
| AdvisorShares Gerber Kawasaki ETF | |||
| IWP | 130.42 | -4.54 | -3.36% |
| iShares Russell Mid-Cap Growth ETF | |||
| PBW | 18.91 | -0.69 | -3.52% |
| Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF | |||
| RING | 34.00 | -1.30 | -3.68% |
| iShares MSCI Global Gold Miners ETF | |||
FQAL and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, FQAL has been closely correlated with SEIC. These tickers have moved in lockstep 70% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is a high statistical probability that if FQAL jumps, then SEIC could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To FQAL | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FQAL | 100% | -1.44% | ||
| SEIC - FQAL | 70% Closely correlated | -2.42% | ||
| SPGI - FQAL | 65% Loosely correlated | -0.38% | ||
| AMAT - FQAL | 65% Loosely correlated | -2.29% | ||
| LRCX - FQAL | 65% Loosely correlated | -3.37% | ||
| CPRT - FQAL | 65% Loosely correlated | -2.80% | ||
More | ||||
SEIC and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, SEIC has been closely correlated with TROW. These tickers have moved in lockstep 68% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is a high statistical probability that if SEIC jumps, then TROW could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To SEIC | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SEIC | 100% | -2.42% | ||
| TROW - SEIC | 68% Closely correlated | -2.05% | ||
| JHG - SEIC | 67% Closely correlated | -1.88% | ||
| APAM - SEIC | 66% Loosely correlated | -3.92% | ||
| BN - SEIC | 64% Loosely correlated | -1.95% | ||
| AMG - SEIC | 63% Loosely correlated | -1.25% | ||
More | ||||