GCWOF vs HLBZF
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 HLBZF 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).
GCWOF’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whileHLBZF’s FA Score has 3 green FA rating(s).
- GCWOF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
- HLBZF’s FA Score: 3 green, 2 red.
Price Growth
GCWOF (@Construction Materials) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while HLBZF (@Construction Materials) price change was -0.12% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Construction Materials industry was -1.51%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -0.08%, and the average quarterly price growth was +2.83%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Construction Materials (-1.51% 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.
| GCWOF | HLBZF | GCWOF / HLBZF | |
| Capitalization | 3.19B | 15.1B | 21% |
| EBITDA | 288M | 3.77B | 8% |
| Gain YTD | 4.571 | 42.120 | 11% |
| P/E Ratio | 12.33 | 8.46 | 146% |
| Revenue | 1.25B | 21.1B | 6% |
| Total Cash | 770M | 1.75B | 44% |
| Total Debt | 516M | 8.71B | 6% |
GCWOF | HLBZF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 42 | 86 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 77 Overvalued | 15 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 42 | 16 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 51 | 96 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 50 | 37 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 87 | 8 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | n/a | 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.
HLBZF's Valuation (15) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for GCWOF (77). This means that HLBZF’s stock grew somewhat faster than GCWOF’s over the last 12 months.
HLBZF's Profit vs Risk Rating (16) in the null industry is in the same range as GCWOF (42). This means that HLBZF’s stock grew similarly to GCWOF’s over the last 12 months.
GCWOF's SMR Rating (51) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for HLBZF (96). This means that GCWOF’s stock grew somewhat faster than HLBZF’s over the last 12 months.
HLBZF's Price Growth Rating (37) in the null industry is in the same range as GCWOF (50). This means that HLBZF’s stock grew similarly to GCWOF’s over the last 12 months.
HLBZF's P/E Growth Rating (8) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for GCWOF (87). This means that HLBZF’s stock grew significantly faster than GCWOF’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 (%) |
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.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To GCWOF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GCWOF | 100% | N/A | ||
| CX - GCWOF | 21% Poorly correlated | -0.18% | ||
| HCMLY - GCWOF | 5% Poorly correlated | +0.05% | ||
| CTXXF - GCWOF | 5% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CMTOY - GCWOF | 4% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| HLBZF - GCWOF | 4% Poorly correlated | +2.88% | ||
More | ||||
HLBZF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that HLBZF and BRKWF have been poorly correlated (+31% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that HLBZF and BRKWF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To HLBZF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HLBZF | 100% | +2.88% | ||
| BRKWF - HLBZF | 31% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| HDLMY - HLBZF | 24% Poorly correlated | +2.98% | ||
| VMC - HLBZF | 23% Poorly correlated | +1.19% | ||
| BCC - HLBZF | 23% Poorly correlated | +3.19% | ||
| CRH - HLBZF | 21% Poorly correlated | +2.00% | ||
More | ||||