GCWOF
Price
$8.76
Change
-$0.39 (-4.26%)
Updated
Apr 7 closing price
Capitalization
3.19B
HCMLY
Price
$22.99
Change
-$0.79 (-3.32%)
Updated
Jun 13 closing price
Capitalization
39.08B
46 days until earnings call
Interact to see
Advertisement

GCWOF vs HCMLY

Header iconGCWOF vs HCMLY Comparison
Open Charts GCWOF vs HCMLYBanner chart's image
Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua SAB de CV
Price$8.76
Change-$0.39 (-4.26%)
Volume$2.96K
Capitalization3.19B
HOLCIM
Price$22.99
Change-$0.79 (-3.32%)
Volume$47.46K
Capitalization39.08B
GCWOF vs HCMLY Comparison Chart
Loading...
HCMLY
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
GCWOF vs. HCMLY commentary
Jun 16, 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 GCWOF is a Hold and HCMLY is a Hold.

Interact to see
Advertisement
COMPARISON
Comparison
Jun 16, 2025
Stock price -- (GCWOF: $8.76 vs. HCMLY: $22.99)
Brand notoriety: GCWOF and HCMLY are both not notable
Both companies represent the Construction Materials industry
Current volume relative to the 65-day Moving Average: GCWOF: 100% vs. HCMLY: 43%
Market capitalization -- GCWOF: $3.19B vs. HCMLY: $39.08B
GCWOF [@Construction Materials] is valued at $3.19B. HCMLY’s [@Construction Materials] market capitalization is $39.08B. The market cap for tickers in the [@Construction Materials] industry ranges from $59.37B to $0. The average market capitalization across the [@Construction Materials] industry is $8.92B.

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).

GCWOF’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whileHCMLY’s FA Score has 3 green FA rating(s).

  • GCWOF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
  • HCMLY’s FA Score: 3 green, 2 red.
According to our system of comparison, HCMLY is a better buy in the long-term than GCWOF.

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.

HCMLY’s TA Score shows that 2 TA indicator(s) are bullish.

  • HCMLY’s TA Score: 2 bullish, 4 bearish.

Price Growth

GCWOF (@Construction Materials) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while HCMLY (@Construction Materials) price change was +0.35% for the same time period.

The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Construction Materials industry was -1.08%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +1.13%, and the average quarterly price growth was +3.25%.

Reported Earning Dates

HCMLY is expected to report earnings on Jul 31, 2025.

Industries' Descriptions

@Construction Materials (-1.08% weekly)

Many naturally occurring substances, such as clay, rocks, sand, and wood, even twigs and leaves have been used in construction material. Many man-made products are also in use. Vulcan Materials Co., Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. and Owens Corning Inc. are examples of construction material companies in the U.S. Performance of companies that extract or produce construction materials could at times depend on demand for residential and commercial buildings/real estate, and therefore in some cases could feel impacted by economic cycles.

SUMMARIES
Loading...
FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
HCMLY($39.1B) has a higher market cap than GCWOF($3.19B). GCWOF has higher P/E ratio than HCMLY: GCWOF (12.33) vs HCMLY (10.41). HCMLY YTD gains are higher at: 32.542 vs. GCWOF (0.114). HCMLY has higher annual earnings (EBITDA): 7.78B vs. GCWOF (288M). HCMLY has more cash in the bank: 3.65B vs. GCWOF (770M). HCMLY has higher revenues than GCWOF: HCMLY (27.6B) vs GCWOF (1.25B).
GCWOFHCMLYGCWOF / HCMLY
Capitalization3.19B39.1B8%
EBITDA288M7.78B4%
Gain YTD0.11432.5420%
P/E Ratio12.3310.41118%
Revenue1.25B27.6B5%
Total Cash770M3.65B21%
Total Debt516MN/A-
FUNDAMENTALS RATINGS
GCWOF vs HCMLY: Fundamental Ratings
GCWOF
HCMLY
OUTLOOK RATING
1..100
5050
VALUATION
overvalued / fair valued / undervalued
1..100
75
Overvalued
9
Undervalued
PROFIT vs RISK RATING
1..100
503
SMR RATING
1..100
5099
PRICE GROWTH RATING
1..100
7342
P/E GROWTH RATING
1..100
6530
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.

HCMLY's Valuation (9) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for GCWOF (75). This means that HCMLY’s stock grew significantly faster than GCWOF’s over the last 12 months.

HCMLY's Profit vs Risk Rating (3) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for GCWOF (50). This means that HCMLY’s stock grew somewhat faster than GCWOF’s over the last 12 months.

GCWOF's SMR Rating (50) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for HCMLY (99). This means that GCWOF’s stock grew somewhat faster than HCMLY’s over the last 12 months.

HCMLY's Price Growth Rating (42) in the null industry is in the same range as GCWOF (73). This means that HCMLY’s stock grew similarly to GCWOF’s over the last 12 months.

HCMLY's P/E Growth Rating (30) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for GCWOF (65). This means that HCMLY’s stock grew somewhat faster than GCWOF’s over the last 12 months.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
HCMLY
RSI
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
60%
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
47%
Momentum
ODDS (%)
N/A
MACD
ODDS (%)
N/A
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
63%
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
61%
Advances
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 11 days ago
63%
Declines
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 7 days ago
51%
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
46%
Aroon
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
56%
View a ticker or compare two or three
Interact to see
Advertisement
HCMLY
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 %
FSRAX8.660.03
+0.35%
Fidelity Advisor Strategic Real Ret A
IVGAX22.28-0.22
-0.98%
VY® Invesco Growth and Income A
GONCX29.88-0.44
-1.45%
JHancock International Growth C
IGEAX78.99-1.21
-1.51%
VY® T. Rowe Price Growth Equity A
VKSDX10.03-0.16
-1.57%
Virtus KAR Small-Mid Cap Value A

GCWOF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that GCWOF and CX have been poorly correlated (+21% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that GCWOF and CX's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To GCWOF
1D Price
Change %
GCWOF100%
N/A
CX - GCWOF
21%
Poorly correlated
-3.15%
HCMLY - GCWOF
5%
Poorly correlated
-3.32%
CTXXF - GCWOF
5%
Poorly correlated
-0.27%
CMTOY - GCWOF
4%
Poorly correlated
N/A
HLBZF - GCWOF
4%
Poorly correlated
+0.97%
More