HUGPF vs IFABF
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 HUGPF is a Hold and IFABF 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).
HUGPF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileIFABF’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- HUGPF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- IFABF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
Price Growth
HUGPF (@Apparel/Footwear) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while IFABF (@Apparel/Footwear) price change was -3.90% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Apparel/Footwear industry was -1.92%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -3.63%, and the average quarterly price growth was -1.67%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Apparel/Footwear (-1.92% weekly)Apparel/footwear might be slightly more ‘cyclical’ in the largely non-cyclical category of non-durables. While digital giants like Amazon have been rapidly expanding their presence, traditional clothing/footwear retailers have also been bulking up their online presence in recent years, to milk the burgeoning trend of online shopping among consumers across the globe. The apparel and footwear retail market was valued at around $ 360 billion in 2018, and this figure was expected to reach about $386 billion by 2020 (according to a Statista report). NIKE, Inc, V.F. Corporation and Under Armour, Inc. are some of the companies with the largest U.S. stock market caps in this segment.
| HUGPF | IFABF | HUGPF / IFABF | |
| Capitalization | 5.59B | 31.2M | 17,923% |
| EBITDA | 682M | 879K | 77,588% |
| Gain YTD | -30.162 | -6.080 | 496% |
| P/E Ratio | 21.01 | 97.48 | 22% |
| Revenue | 3.85B | 22.9M | 16,799% |
| Total Cash | 137M | 3.65M | 3,758% |
| Total Debt | 757M | 1.14M | 66,229% |
HUGPF | IFABF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 27 Undervalued | 87 Overvalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 91 | 94 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 45 | 85 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 57 | 58 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 81 | 44 | |
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.
HUGPF's Valuation (27) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for IFABF (87). This means that HUGPF’s stock grew somewhat faster than IFABF’s over the last 12 months.
HUGPF's Profit vs Risk Rating (91) in the null industry is in the same range as IFABF (94). This means that HUGPF’s stock grew similarly to IFABF’s over the last 12 months.
HUGPF's SMR Rating (45) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for IFABF (85). This means that HUGPF’s stock grew somewhat faster than IFABF’s over the last 12 months.
HUGPF's Price Growth Rating (57) in the null industry is in the same range as IFABF (58). This means that HUGPF’s stock grew similarly to IFABF’s over the last 12 months.
IFABF's P/E Growth Rating (44) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for HUGPF (81). This means that IFABF’s stock grew somewhat faster than HUGPF’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 (%) |
HUGPF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that HUGPF and YUEIF have been poorly correlated (+27% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that HUGPF and YUEIF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To HUGPF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HUGPF | 100% | N/A | ||
| YUEIF - HUGPF | 27% Poorly correlated | -3.70% | ||
| HMRZF - HUGPF | 1% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| JNBYF - HUGPF | 1% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CDGXY - HUGPF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| GXSBY - HUGPF | -0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
IFABF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that IFABF and GRNL have been poorly correlated (+6% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that IFABF and GRNL's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To IFABF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IFABF | 100% | N/A | ||
| GRNL - IFABF | 6% Poorly correlated | +1.96% | ||
| GXSBY - IFABF | 2% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| HNNMY - IFABF | -0% Poorly correlated | +0.47% | ||
| HUGPF - IFABF | -2% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CDGXY - IFABF | -6% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||