GBBYF vs THLPF
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 GBBYF is a Hold and THLPF 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).
GBBYF’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whileTHLPF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).
- GBBYF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
- THLPF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
Price Growth
GBBYF (@Recreational Products) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while THLPF (@Recreational Products) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Recreational Products industry was -5.12%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -1.52%, and the average quarterly price growth was +8.14%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Recreational Products (-5.12% weekly)The Leisure and Recreation Products industry includes companies offering recreational goods/services such as video games, swimming pools, golf courses, boats, outdoor spaces etc. Since these are mainly geared towards consumers, strong employment conditions and healthy incomes generally augur well for the recreational products industry. Some of the largest market caps in this space belong to video game developers (e.g. Activision Blizzard, Electronic Arts and Take-two Interactive), and toy /board game makers (like Hasbro).
| GBBYF | THLPF | GBBYF / THLPF | |
| Capitalization | 122M | 3.3B | 4% |
| EBITDA | 703M | 1.32B | 53% |
| Gain YTD | 122.889 | 5.660 | 2,171% |
| P/E Ratio | 102.04 | 33.67 | 303% |
| Revenue | 9.69B | 9.05B | 107% |
| Total Cash | 1.11B | 233M | 474% |
| Total Debt | 3.82B | 2.85B | 134% |
GBBYF | THLPF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 57 Fair valued | 23 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 69 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 84 | 53 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 36 | 53 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 91 | 53 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 30 | 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.
THLPF's Valuation (23) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for GBBYF (57). This means that THLPF’s stock grew somewhat faster than GBBYF’s over the last 12 months.
THLPF's Profit vs Risk Rating (69) in the null industry is in the same range as GBBYF (100). This means that THLPF’s stock grew similarly to GBBYF’s over the last 12 months.
THLPF's SMR Rating (53) in the null industry is in the same range as GBBYF (84). This means that THLPF’s stock grew similarly to GBBYF’s over the last 12 months.
GBBYF's Price Growth Rating (36) in the null industry is in the same range as THLPF (53). This means that GBBYF’s stock grew similarly to THLPF’s over the last 12 months.
THLPF's P/E Growth Rating (53) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for GBBYF (91). This means that THLPF’s stock grew somewhat faster than GBBYF’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 (%) |
GBBYF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that GBBYF and THLPF have been poorly correlated (+31% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that GBBYF and THLPF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To GBBYF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GBBYF | 100% | N/A | ||
| THLPF - GBBYF | 31% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| TOMYY - GBBYF | 28% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CUKPF - GBBYF | 1% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CLKXF - GBBYF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| GYYMF - GBBYF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
THLPF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that THLPF and GBBYF have been poorly correlated (+31% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that THLPF and GBBYF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To THLPF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| THLPF | 100% | N/A | ||
| GBBYF - THLPF | 31% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| BSFFF - THLPF | 20% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| SMNNY - THLPF | 3% Poorly correlated | -1.84% | ||
| SHMDF - THLPF | 3% Poorly correlated | -4.56% | ||
| PYHOF - THLPF | 2% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||