IBJHF
Price
$1.70
Change
-$0.36 (-17.48%)
Updated
Oct 15 closing price
Capitalization
655.99M
Intraday Buy/Sell Signals
MCEM
Price
$225.00
Change
+$5.30 (+2.41%)
Updated
Oct 16 closing price
Capitalization
853.1M
Intraday Buy/Sell Signals
Interact to see
Advertisement

IBJHF vs MCEM

Header iconIBJHF vs MCEM Comparison
Open Charts IBJHF vs MCEMBanner chart's image
Ibstock
Price$1.70
Change-$0.36 (-17.48%)
Volume$170
Capitalization655.99M
Monarch Cement Co. (The)
Price$225.00
Change+$5.30 (+2.41%)
Volume$1.45K
Capitalization853.1M
IBJHF vs MCEM Comparison Chart in %
IBJHF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
MCEM
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
IBJHF vs. MCEM commentary
Oct 18, 2025

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 IBJHF is a Hold and MCEM is a Hold.

Interact to see
Advertisement
COMPARISON
Comparison
Oct 18, 2025
Stock price -- (IBJHF: $1.70 vs. MCEM: $228.00)
Brand notoriety: IBJHF and MCEM are both not notable
Both companies represent the Construction Materials industry
Current volume relative to the 65-day Moving Average: IBJHF: 2% vs. MCEM: 223%
Market capitalization -- IBJHF: $655.99M vs. MCEM: $853.1M
IBJHF [@Construction Materials] is valued at $655.99M. MCEM’s [@Construction Materials] market capitalization is $853.1M. The market cap for tickers in the [@Construction Materials] industry ranges from $78.74B to $0. The average market capitalization across the [@Construction Materials] industry is $10.03B.

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).

IBJHF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileMCEM’s FA Score has 2 green FA rating(s).

  • IBJHF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
  • MCEM’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
According to our system of comparison, MCEM is a better buy in the long-term than IBJHF.

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.

IBJHF’s TA Score shows that 0 TA indicator(s) are bullish while MCEM’s TA Score has 3 bullish TA indicator(s).

  • IBJHF’s TA Score: 0 bullish, 3 bearish.
  • MCEM’s TA Score: 3 bullish, 5 bearish.
According to our system of comparison, MCEM is a better buy in the short-term than IBJHF.

Price Growth

IBJHF (@Construction Materials) experienced а -17.48% price change this week, while MCEM (@Construction Materials) price change was +1.71% for the same time period.

The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Construction Materials industry was -0.11%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -0.63%, and the average quarterly price growth was +19.75%.

Industries' Descriptions

@Construction Materials (-0.11% weekly)

Many naturally occurring substances, such as clay, rocks, sand, and wood, even twigs and leaves have been used in construction material. Many man-made products are also in use. Vulcan Materials Co., Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. and Owens Corning Inc. are examples of construction material companies in the U.S. Performance of companies that extract or produce construction materials could at times depend on demand for residential and commercial buildings/real estate, and therefore in some cases could feel impacted by economic cycles.

SUMMARIES
Loading...
FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
MCEM($853M) has a higher market cap than IBJHF($656M). IBJHF has higher P/E ratio than MCEM: IBJHF (42.28) vs MCEM (10.76). IBJHF YTD gains are higher at: 17.241 vs. MCEM (5.026). MCEM has higher annual earnings (EBITDA): 114M vs. IBJHF (66.8M). MCEM has less debt than IBJHF: MCEM (1.85M) vs IBJHF (200M). IBJHF has higher revenues than MCEM: IBJHF (381M) vs MCEM (271M).
IBJHFMCEMIBJHF / MCEM
Capitalization656M853M77%
EBITDA66.8M114M59%
Gain YTD17.2415.026343%
P/E Ratio42.2810.76393%
Revenue381M271M141%
Total Cash22.6MN/A-
Total Debt200M1.85M10,834%
FUNDAMENTALS RATINGS
IBJHF vs MCEM: Fundamental Ratings
IBJHF
MCEM
OUTLOOK RATING
1..100
9967
VALUATION
overvalued / fair valued / undervalued
1..100
9
Undervalued
15
Undervalued
PROFIT vs RISK RATING
1..100
1003
SMR RATING
1..100
100100
PRICE GROWTH RATING
1..100
6561
P/E GROWTH RATING
1..100
4649
SEASONALITY SCORE
1..100
6550

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.

IBJHF's Valuation (9) in the null industry is in the same range as MCEM (15). This means that IBJHF’s stock grew similarly to MCEM’s over the last 12 months.

MCEM's Profit vs Risk Rating (3) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for IBJHF (100). This means that MCEM’s stock grew significantly faster than IBJHF’s over the last 12 months.

MCEM's SMR Rating (100) in the null industry is in the same range as IBJHF (100). This means that MCEM’s stock grew similarly to IBJHF’s over the last 12 months.

MCEM's Price Growth Rating (61) in the null industry is in the same range as IBJHF (65). This means that MCEM’s stock grew similarly to IBJHF’s over the last 12 months.

IBJHF's P/E Growth Rating (46) in the null industry is in the same range as MCEM (49). This means that IBJHF’s stock grew similarly to MCEM’s over the last 12 months.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
IBJHFMCEM
RSI
ODDS (%)
N/A
N/A
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
61%
Momentum
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
15%
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
32%
MACD
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
40%
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
20%
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
40%
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
20%
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
41%
Advances
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bullish Trend 29 days ago
58%
Declines
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bearish Trend 5 days ago
50%
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
71%
Aroon
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
42%
View a ticker or compare two or three
Interact to see
Advertisement
IBJHF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
MCEM
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
Interesting Tickers
1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
1 Day
MFs / NAMEPrice $Chg $Chg %
DHLRX33.28N/A
N/A
Diamond Hill Large Cap I
OCLVX20.16N/A
N/A
Optimum Large Cap Value C
STVYX18.42N/A
N/A
SEI Tax-Managed Mgd Volatility Y (SIMT)
SACVX37.96-0.21
-0.55%
Spirit of America Large Cap Value C
CVLFX15.28-0.11
-0.71%
Cullen Value C

IBJHF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that IBJHF and SMID have been poorly correlated (+4% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that IBJHF and SMID's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To IBJHF
1D Price
Change %
IBJHF100%
N/A
SMID - IBJHF
4%
Poorly correlated
-1.33%
CTXXF - IBJHF
2%
Poorly correlated
-1.54%
HCMLF - IBJHF
1%
Poorly correlated
N/A
MCEM - IBJHF
1%
Poorly correlated
+2.41%
LKSGF - IBJHF
1%
Poorly correlated
N/A
More

MCEM and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that MCEM and PPCLY have been poorly correlated (+11% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that MCEM and PPCLY's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To MCEM
1D Price
Change %
MCEM100%
+2.41%
PPCLY - MCEM
11%
Poorly correlated
N/A
THYCY - MCEM
1%
Poorly correlated
-5.56%
IBJHF - MCEM
1%
Poorly correlated
N/A
JHIUF - MCEM
0%
Poorly correlated
N/A
PSGTY - MCEM
-0%
Poorly correlated
N/A
More