GBLBF
Price
$66.96
Change
+$0.50 (+0.75%)
Updated
Jan 17 closing price
Capitalization
11.08B
PYCFF
Price
$1.69
Change
+$0.20 (+13.42%)
Updated
Dec 9 closing price
Capitalization
38.01M
Ad is loading...

GBLBF vs PYCFF

Header iconGBLBF vs PYCFF Comparison
Open Charts GBLBF vs PYCFFBanner chart's image
Groupe Bruxelles Lambert SA
Price$66.96
Change+$0.50 (+0.75%)
Volume$38.08K
Capitalization11.08B
Mount Logan Cap
Price$1.69
Change+$0.20 (+13.42%)
Volume$29K
Capitalization38.01M
GBLBF vs PYCFF Comparison Chart
Loading...
GBLBF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
PYCFF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
GBLBF vs. PYCFF commentary
Jan 20, 2025

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 GBLBF is a Hold and PYCFF is a Hold.

Ad is loading...
COMPARISON
Comparison
Jan 20, 2025
Stock price -- (GBLBF: $66.96 vs. PYCFF: $1.69)
Brand notoriety: GBLBF and PYCFF are both not notable
Both companies represent the Investment Managers industry
Current volume relative to the 65-day Moving Average: GBLBF: 1409% vs. PYCFF: 78%
Market capitalization -- GBLBF: $11.08B vs. PYCFF: $38.01M
GBLBF [@Investment Managers] is valued at $11.08B. PYCFF’s [@Investment Managers] market capitalization is $38.01M. The market cap for tickers in the [@Investment Managers] industry ranges from $124.17B to $0. The average market capitalization across the [@Investment Managers] industry is $5.97B.

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).

GBLBF’s FA Score shows that 2 FA rating(s) are green whilePYCFF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).

  • GBLBF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
  • PYCFF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
According to our system of comparison, both GBLBF and PYCFF are a bad buy in the long-term.

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.

GBLBF’s TA Score shows that 3 TA indicator(s) are bullish while PYCFF’s TA Score has 2 bullish TA indicator(s).

  • GBLBF’s TA Score: 3 bullish, 1 bearish.
  • PYCFF’s TA Score: 2 bullish, 1 bearish.
According to our system of comparison, GBLBF is a better buy in the short-term than PYCFF.

Price Growth

GBLBF (@Investment Managers) experienced а +1.07% price change this week, while PYCFF (@Investment Managers) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.

The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Investment Managers industry was +2.49%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +2.40%, and the average quarterly price growth was +7.41%.

Industries' Descriptions

@Investment Managers (+2.49% weekly)

Investment Managers manage financial assets and other investments of clients. Management includes designing a short- or long-term strategy for buying/holding and selling of portfolio holdings. It can also include tax services and other aspects of financial planning as well. While it is perceived that the industry is faced with growing competition from robo-advisors/digital platforms and passive/ index-tracking funds, many investors still find value in actively managed in-person services that investment management companies often emphasize on. At the same time, many wealth managers are also incorporating digital initiatives/low cost options in addition to their in-person customized services. Their main sources of revenues are fees as a percentage of assets under management, in addition to a certain portion of clients’ gains from asset appreciation. BlackRock, Inc., Blackstone Group Inc and Brookfield Asset Management are some of the major investment management companies.

SUMMARIES
Loading...
FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
GBLBF($11.1B) has a higher market cap than PYCFF($38M). GBLBF has higher P/E ratio than PYCFF: GBLBF (47.39) vs PYCFF (2.05). PYCFF YTD gains are higher at: 0.000 vs. GBLBF (-1.239). GBLBF has higher annual earnings (EBITDA): 676M vs. PYCFF (-8.84M). GBLBF has more cash in the bank: 3.3B vs. PYCFF (200M). PYCFF has less debt than GBLBF: PYCFF (76.3M) vs GBLBF (7.81B). GBLBF has higher revenues than PYCFF: GBLBF (9B) vs PYCFF (183M).
GBLBFPYCFFGBLBF / PYCFF
Capitalization11.1B38M29,211%
EBITDA676M-8.84M-7,644%
Gain YTD-1.2390.000-
P/E Ratio47.392.052,314%
Revenue9B183M4,918%
Total Cash3.3B200M1,651%
Total Debt7.81B76.3M10,231%
FUNDAMENTALS RATINGS
GBLBF vs PYCFF: Fundamental Ratings
GBLBF
PYCFF
OUTLOOK RATING
1..100
5050
VALUATION
overvalued / fair valued / undervalued
1..100
19
Undervalued
25
Undervalued
PROFIT vs RISK RATING
1..100
100100
SMR RATING
1..100
6792
PRICE GROWTH RATING
1..100
7643
P/E GROWTH RATING
1..100
280
SEASONALITY SCORE
1..100
n/an/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.

GBLBF's Valuation (19) in the null industry is in the same range as PYCFF (25). This means that GBLBF’s stock grew similarly to PYCFF’s over the last 12 months.

GBLBF's Profit vs Risk Rating (100) in the null industry is in the same range as PYCFF (100). This means that GBLBF’s stock grew similarly to PYCFF’s over the last 12 months.

GBLBF's SMR Rating (67) in the null industry is in the same range as PYCFF (92). This means that GBLBF’s stock grew similarly to PYCFF’s over the last 12 months.

PYCFF's Price Growth Rating (43) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for GBLBF (76). This means that PYCFF’s stock grew somewhat faster than GBLBF’s over the last 12 months.

GBLBF's P/E Growth Rating (2) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for PYCFF (80). This means that GBLBF’s stock grew significantly faster than PYCFF’s over the last 12 months.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
GBLBFPYCFF
RSI
ODDS (%)
N/A
N/A
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 12 days ago
47%
Bullish Trend 12 days ago
14%
Momentum
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 12 days ago
47%
N/A
MACD
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 12 days ago
55%
Bearish Trend 12 days ago
29%
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 12 days ago
38%
Bullish Trend 12 days ago
20%
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 12 days ago
51%
Bullish Trend 12 days ago
20%
Advances
ODDS (%)
N/A
N/A
Declines
ODDS (%)
N/A
N/A
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
N/A
N/A
Aroon
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 12 days ago
57%
Bullish Trend 12 days ago
33%
View a ticker or compare two or three
Ad is loading...
GBLBF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
PYCFF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
Interesting Tickers
1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
1 Day
MFs / NAMEPrice $Chg $Chg %
GGOAX12.790.10
+0.79%
Goldman Sachs Mid Cap Growth A
TLVAX23.310.16
+0.69%
Timothy Plan Large/Mid Cap Value A
OIEQX24.770.17
+0.69%
JPMorgan Equity Income R4
FVDKX36.750.18
+0.49%
Fidelity Value Discovery K
EIPFX18.730.08
+0.43%
EIP Growth and Income Investor

GBLBF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that GBLBF and VRTS have been poorly correlated (+32% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that GBLBF and VRTS's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To GBLBF
1D Price
Change %
GBLBF100%
+0.75%
VRTS - GBLBF
32%
Poorly correlated
-0.43%
JHG - GBLBF
30%
Poorly correlated
+1.83%
AMP - GBLBF
28%
Poorly correlated
+1.05%
BBUC - GBLBF
27%
Poorly correlated
-1.06%
BN - GBLBF
26%
Poorly correlated
+1.04%
More

PYCFF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that PYCFF and GCMG have been poorly correlated (+9% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that PYCFF and GCMG's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To PYCFF
1D Price
Change %
PYCFF100%
N/A
GCMG - PYCFF
9%
Poorly correlated
+0.08%
GBLBF - PYCFF
5%
Poorly correlated
+0.75%
WNDLF - PYCFF
1%
Poorly correlated
N/A
JFHHF - PYCFF
0%
Poorly correlated
N/A
IVTBF - PYCFF
0%
Poorly correlated
N/A
More