Advertisement
HSWLF vs HWGG
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 HSWLF is a Hold and HWGG 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).
HSWLF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileHWGG’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- HSWLF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- HWGG’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 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.
HSWLF’s TA Score shows that 2 TA indicator(s) are bullish while HWGG’s TA Score has 5 bullish TA indicator(s).
- HSWLF’s TA Score: 2 bullish, 1 bearish.
- HWGG’s TA Score: 5 bullish, 5 bearish.
Price Growth
HSWLF (@Consumer Sundries) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while HWGG (@Consumer Sundries) price change was +35.00% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Consumer Sundries industry was -0.31%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +41.74%, and the average quarterly price growth was +18.14%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Consumer Sundries (-0.31% weekly)Consumer sundries companies make products that usually do not have another classification, such as lawn and garden products, pest-control products, pet food and pet products like leashes, collars, and harnesses. Central Garden & Pet Company and Dogness (International) Corporation are examples of companies operating in this industry.
| HSWLF | HWGG | HSWLF / HWGG | |
| Capitalization | 193M | 666M | 29% |
| EBITDA | 18.5M | N/A | - |
| Gain YTD | -6.061 | 806.040 | -1% |
| P/E Ratio | 22.37 | N/A | - |
| Revenue | 92.3M | N/A | - |
| Total Cash | 11M | N/A | - |
| Total Debt | 100K | N/A | - |
HSWLF | HWGG | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 57 Fair valued | 99 Overvalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 43 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 67 | 100 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 59 | 34 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 10 | 100 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 65 | 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.
HSWLF's Valuation (57) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for HWGG (99). This means that HSWLF’s stock grew somewhat faster than HWGG’s over the last 12 months.
HSWLF's Profit vs Risk Rating (43) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for HWGG (100). This means that HSWLF’s stock grew somewhat faster than HWGG’s over the last 12 months.
HSWLF's SMR Rating (67) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for HWGG (100). This means that HSWLF’s stock grew somewhat faster than HWGG’s over the last 12 months.
HWGG's Price Growth Rating (34) in the null industry is in the same range as HSWLF (59). This means that HWGG’s stock grew similarly to HSWLF’s over the last 12 months.
HSWLF's P/E Growth Rating (10) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for HWGG (100). This means that HSWLF’s stock grew significantly faster than HWGG’s over the last 12 months.
| HSWLF | HWGG | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | N/A | 3 days ago 64% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 37% | 3 days ago 55% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | N/A | 3 days ago 72% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 35% | 3 days ago 57% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 28% | 3 days ago 32% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 26% | 3 days ago 32% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | N/A | 3 days ago 90% |
| Declines ODDS (%) | N/A | 13 days ago 89% |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | N/A | 3 days ago 58% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 19% | N/A |
Advertisement
HSWLF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that HSWLF and DRTGF have been poorly correlated (+20% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that HSWLF and DRTGF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To HSWLF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HSWLF | 100% | N/A | ||
| DRTGF - HSWLF | 20% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CTMLF - HSWLF | 3% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| EDDRF - HSWLF | 1% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| FGETF - HSWLF | -0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| HWGG - HSWLF | -0% Poorly correlated | +10.20% | ||
More | ||||
HWGG and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that HWGG and EDDRF have been poorly correlated (+7% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that HWGG and EDDRF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To HWGG | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HWGG | 100% | +10.20% | ||
| EDDRF - HWGG | 7% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| DRTGF - HWGG | 5% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| FGETF - HWGG | 5% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| FTDR - HWGG | 1% Poorly correlated | +0.30% | ||
| CTMLF - HWGG | 1% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||