HLYK vs LWSCF
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 HLYK is a Hold and LWSCF 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).
HLYK’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whileLWSCF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).
- HLYK’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
- LWSCF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
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.
HLYK’s TA Score shows that 6 TA indicator(s) are bullish while LWSCF’s TA Score has 1 bullish TA indicator(s).
- HLYK’s TA Score: 6 bullish, 2 bearish.
- LWSCF’s TA Score: 1 bullish, 1 bearish.
Price Growth
HLYK (@Medical/Nursing Services) experienced а +61.29% price change this week, while LWSCF (@Medical/Nursing Services) price change was +0.47% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Medical/Nursing Services industry was +4.05%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +3.24%, and the average quarterly price growth was -5.61%.
Reported Earning Dates
HLYK is expected to report earnings on Mar 31, 2023.
Industries' Descriptions
@Medical/Nursing Services (+4.05% weekly)The medical/nursing services includes companies that provide medical-related services such as ambulance services, dialysis centers, respiratory therapy, blood testing and rehabilitation services. DaVita Inc., Chemed Corporation and Guardant Health, Inc. are examples of companies in this industry.
| HLYK | LWSCF | HLYK / LWSCF | |
| Capitalization | 18.3M | 632M | 3% |
| EBITDA | -7.37M | 63.9M | -12% |
| Gain YTD | 17.096 | -5.678 | -301% |
| P/E Ratio | N/A | 76.92 | - |
| Revenue | 6.08M | 736M | 1% |
| Total Cash | 68.7K | 30.4M | 0% |
| Total Debt | 1.81M | 999M | 0% |
HLYK | LWSCF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 95 Overvalued | 19 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 100 | 90 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 92 | 60 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 100 | 99 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | n/a | 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.
LWSCF's Valuation (19) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for HLYK (95). This means that LWSCF’s stock grew significantly faster than HLYK’s over the last 12 months.
LWSCF's Profit vs Risk Rating (100) in the null industry is in the same range as HLYK (100). This means that LWSCF’s stock grew similarly to HLYK’s over the last 12 months.
LWSCF's SMR Rating (90) in the null industry is in the same range as HLYK (100). This means that LWSCF’s stock grew similarly to HLYK’s over the last 12 months.
LWSCF's Price Growth Rating (60) in the null industry is in the same range as HLYK (92). This means that LWSCF’s stock grew similarly to HLYK’s over the last 12 months.
LWSCF's P/E Growth Rating (99) in the null industry is in the same range as HLYK (100). This means that LWSCF’s stock grew similarly to HLYK’s over the last 12 months.
| HLYK | LWSCF | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | 12 days ago 69% | N/A |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 12 days ago 86% | N/A |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 12 days ago 66% | N/A |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 12 days ago 67% | 12 days ago 53% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 12 days ago 79% | 12 days ago 50% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 12 days ago 90% | 12 days ago 54% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | 12 days ago 76% | N/A |
| Declines ODDS (%) | 18 days ago 90% | 18 days ago 51% |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | 12 days ago 76% | N/A |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 12 days ago 90% | N/A |
HLYK and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that HLYK and RAFLF have been poorly correlated (+17% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that HLYK and RAFLF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To HLYK | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HLYK | 100% | -0.79% | ||
| RAFLF - HLYK | 17% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| ORPEF - HLYK | 14% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CMPS - HLYK | 13% Poorly correlated | +2.35% | ||
| LWSCF - HLYK | 10% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| MFCSF - HLYK | 9% Poorly correlated | +5.79% | ||
More | ||||
LWSCF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that LWSCF and ASTH have been poorly correlated (+21% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that LWSCF and ASTH's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To LWSCF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LWSCF | 100% | N/A | ||
| ASTH - LWSCF | 21% Poorly correlated | +5.43% | ||
| MFCSF - LWSCF | 16% Poorly correlated | +5.79% | ||
| LTGHY - LWSCF | 16% Poorly correlated | -3.53% | ||
| HLYK - LWSCF | 10% Poorly correlated | -0.79% | ||
| NWKHY - LWSCF | 5% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||