GPFOF vs NODB
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 GPFOF is a Hold and NODB 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).
GPFOF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileNODB’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- GPFOF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- NODB’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
Price Growth
GPFOF (@Regional Banks) experienced а +1.27% price change this week, while NODB (@Regional Banks) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Regional Banks industry was +0.40%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +3.87%, and the average quarterly price growth was +18.03%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Regional Banks (+0.40% weekly)Regional banks have a smaller reach than major banks, and cater mostly to one region of a country, such as a state or within a group of states. They offer services often similar – albeit with some limitations/smaller scale – compared to major banks. Taking deposits, making loans, mortgages, leases, credit cards , fund management, insurance and investment banking. SunTrust Banks, State Street Corp., M&T Bank Corp. are some examples of U.S. regional banks.
| GPFOF | NODB | GPFOF / NODB | |
| Capitalization | 15B | 98.4M | 15,244% |
| EBITDA | N/A | N/A | - |
| Gain YTD | -17.939 | -4.474 | 401% |
| P/E Ratio | 9.60 | N/A | - |
| Revenue | 62.4B | 28.7M | 217,422% |
| Total Cash | N/A | N/A | - |
| Total Debt | 68.2B | 5.45M | 1,252,525% |
GPFOF | NODB | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 58 Fair valued | 36 Fair valued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 47 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 2 | 63 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 79 | 50 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 87 | 54 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 50 | 50 |
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.
NODB's Valuation (36) in the null industry is in the same range as GPFOF (58). This means that NODB’s stock grew similarly to GPFOF’s over the last 12 months.
GPFOF's Profit vs Risk Rating (47) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for NODB (100). This means that GPFOF’s stock grew somewhat faster than NODB’s over the last 12 months.
GPFOF's SMR Rating (2) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for NODB (63). This means that GPFOF’s stock grew somewhat faster than NODB’s over the last 12 months.
NODB's Price Growth Rating (50) in the null industry is in the same range as GPFOF (79). This means that NODB’s stock grew similarly to GPFOF’s over the last 12 months.
NODB's P/E Growth Rating (54) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for GPFOF (87). This means that NODB’s stock grew somewhat faster than GPFOF’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 (%) |
GPFOF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, GPFOF has been loosely correlated with BNCZF. These tickers have moved in lockstep 50% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if GPFOF jumps, then BNCZF could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To GPFOF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPFOF | 100% | N/A | ||
| BNCZF - GPFOF | 50% Loosely correlated | N/A | ||
| CSHX - GPFOF | 41% Loosely correlated | N/A | ||
| ALBKY - GPFOF | 37% Loosely correlated | N/A | ||
| SLRK - GPFOF | 34% Loosely correlated | -1.43% | ||
| OSBK - GPFOF | 32% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
NODB and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that NODB and VBFC have been poorly correlated (+28% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that NODB and VBFC's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To NODB | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NODB | 100% | N/A | ||
| VBFC - NODB | 28% Poorly correlated | +0.36% | ||
| CWBK - NODB | 26% Poorly correlated | -0.81% | ||
| SLBK - NODB | 25% Poorly correlated | +1.56% | ||
| GPFOF - NODB | 24% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| WCFB - NODB | 22% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||