FQVTF vs LSDAF
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 FQVTF is a Hold and LSDAF 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).
FQVTF’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whileLSDAF’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- FQVTF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
- LSDAF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
Price Growth
FQVTF (@Beverages: Non-Alcoholic) experienced а -4.18% price change this week, while LSDAF (@Beverages: Non-Alcoholic) price change was -4.99% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Beverages: Non-Alcoholic industry was +0.06%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +0.36%, and the average quarterly price growth was -1.89%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Beverages: Non-Alcoholic (+0.06% weekly)Non-alcoholic drinks include traces of alcohol or low alcohol content or without alcohol or alcohol removed. Functional Beverages, Carbonated Soft Drinks (CSDs), Sports Drinks, Fruit Beverages, and Bottled Water are some common types of non-alcoholic beverages. The largest segment in this market is soft drinks (think Pepsi and Coke). Many established companies in this space have also been stepping up production of low to zero-calorie varieties in recent years, to cater to a rising number of health-conscious consumers. Coca-Cola Company, Pepsico Inc, Keurig Dr Pepper Inc. and Monster Beverage Corporation are some major non-alcoholic beverage makers.
| FQVTF | LSDAF | FQVTF / LSDAF | |
| Capitalization | 2.01B | 770M | 261% |
| EBITDA | 52.7M | 159M | 33% |
| Gain YTD | -37.545 | 22.211 | -169% |
| P/E Ratio | 65.79 | 13.58 | 485% |
| Revenue | 330M | 2B | 17% |
| Total Cash | 100M | 338K | 29,586% |
| Total Debt | 2.7M | 251M | 1% |
FQVTF | LSDAF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 63 | 97 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 37 Fair valued | 35 Fair valued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 55 | 64 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 86 | 39 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 97 | 79 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 85 | 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.
LSDAF's Valuation (35) in the null industry is in the same range as FQVTF (37). This means that LSDAF’s stock grew similarly to FQVTF’s over the last 12 months.
LSDAF's Profit vs Risk Rating (100) in the null industry is in the same range as FQVTF (100). This means that LSDAF’s stock grew similarly to FQVTF’s over the last 12 months.
FQVTF's SMR Rating (55) in the null industry is in the same range as LSDAF (64). This means that FQVTF’s stock grew similarly to LSDAF’s over the last 12 months.
LSDAF's Price Growth Rating (39) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for FQVTF (86). This means that LSDAF’s stock grew somewhat faster than FQVTF’s over the last 12 months.
LSDAF's P/E Growth Rating (79) in the null industry is in the same range as FQVTF (97). This means that LSDAF’s stock grew similarly to FQVTF’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 (%) |
FQVTF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that FQVTF and JSDA have been poorly correlated (+9% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that FQVTF and JSDA's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To FQVTF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FQVTF | 100% | -1.60% | ||
| JSDA - FQVTF | 9% Poorly correlated | -1.11% | ||
| UPCHY - FQVTF | 5% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| YKLTY - FQVTF | 5% Poorly correlated | -0.52% | ||
| EMBVF - FQVTF | 4% Poorly correlated | -2.44% | ||
| LSDAF - FQVTF | 3% Poorly correlated | -1.72% | ||
More | ||||
LSDAF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that LSDAF and SHOT have been poorly correlated (+11% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that LSDAF and SHOT's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To LSDAF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LSDAF | 100% | -1.72% | ||
| SHOT - LSDAF | 11% Poorly correlated | -3.51% | ||
| FQVTF - LSDAF | 3% Poorly correlated | -1.60% | ||
| UPCHY - LSDAF | 2% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| MOJO - LSDAF | 2% Poorly correlated | -0.74% | ||
| JSDA - LSDAF | 1% Poorly correlated | -1.11% | ||
More | ||||