GLDAF vs IPHLF
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 GLDAF is a Hold and IPHLF 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).
GLDAF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileIPHLF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).
- GLDAF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- IPHLF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
Price Growth
GLDAF (@Miscellaneous Commercial Services) experienced а +20.95% price change this week, while IPHLF (@Miscellaneous Commercial Services) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Miscellaneous Commercial Services industry was -2.43%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +0.06%, and the average quarterly price growth was -1.20%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Miscellaneous Commercial Services (-2.43% weekly)The sector produces general business services, and are not classified elsewhere. For example, FleetCor Technologies provides fuel cards and workforce payment products and services; Copart, Inc. provides online vehicle auction and remarketing services across various nations; Equifax Inc. collects and aggregates credit information on consumers and businesses worldwide, along with selling credit monitoring and fraud-prevention services. Many of the companies in this category have multi-billion market capitalizations.
| GLDAF | IPHLF | GLDAF / IPHLF | |
| Capitalization | 1.91B | 1.25B | 153% |
| EBITDA | 72.7M | 131M | 55% |
| Gain YTD | 26.368 | -11.600 | -227% |
| P/E Ratio | 39.68 | 40.32 | 98% |
| Revenue | 243M | 412M | 59% |
| Total Cash | 34M | 88.4M | 38% |
| Total Debt | 314M | 161M | 195% |
| RSI ODDS (%) |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) |
| Momentum ODDS (%) |
| MACD ODDS (%) |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) |
| Advances ODDS (%) |
| Declines ODDS (%) |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) |
| Aroon ODDS (%) |
| 1 Day | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| MFs / NAME | Price $ | Chg $ | Chg % |
| FLUIX | 30.58 | -0.06 | -0.20% |
| Fidelity Advisor Stk Selec Lg Cp Val I | |||
| VSFAX | 27.79 | -0.28 | -1.00% |
| Federated Hermes Clover Small Value A | |||
| RIVSX | 18.46 | -0.31 | -1.65% |
| River Oak Discovery | |||
| LGLAX | 45.94 | -0.79 | -1.69% |
| Lord Abbett Growth Leaders A | |||
| DWOIX | 20.65 | -0.48 | -2.27% |
| BNY Mellon Research Growth I | |||
GLDAF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that GLDAF and NSYC have been poorly correlated (+4% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that GLDAF and NSYC's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To GLDAF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GLDAF | 100% | N/A | ||
| NSYC - GLDAF | 4% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| WBQNL - GLDAF | 3% Poorly correlated | -5.86% | ||
| NPLS - GLDAF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| IPHLF - GLDAF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| BYCRF - GLDAF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
IPHLF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, IPHLF has been loosely correlated with CWPS. These tickers have moved in lockstep 49% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if IPHLF jumps, then CWPS could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To IPHLF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IPHLF | 100% | N/A | ||
| CWPS - IPHLF | 49% Loosely correlated | N/A | ||
| TLPFY - IPHLF | 47% Loosely correlated | +1.22% | ||
| TLPFF - IPHLF | 46% Loosely correlated | -1.43% | ||
| ADT - IPHLF | 25% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| WBQNL - IPHLF | 8% Poorly correlated | -5.86% | ||
More | ||||