IBJHF vs MCEM
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.
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 2 FA rating(s) are green whileMCEM’s FA Score has 3 green FA rating(s).
- IBJHF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
- MCEM’s FA Score: 3 green, 2 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.
MCEM’s TA Score shows that 4 TA indicator(s) are bullish.
- MCEM’s TA Score: 4 bullish, 0 bearish.
Price Growth
IBJHF (@Construction Materials) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while MCEM (@Construction Materials) price change was +1.15% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Construction Materials industry was +1.68%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -1.06%, and the average quarterly price growth was +4.70%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Construction Materials (+1.68% 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.
| IBJHF | MCEM | IBJHF / MCEM | |
| Capitalization | 758M | 352M | 215% |
| EBITDA | 148M | 39M | 379% |
| Gain YTD | 0.000 | 0.074 | - |
| P/E Ratio | 7.75 | N/A | - |
| Revenue | 513M | 166M | 309% |
| Total Cash | 54.3M | N/A | - |
| Total Debt | 133M | 2.83M | 4,698% |
IBJHF | MCEM | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 4 Undervalued | 15 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 2 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 89 | 4 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 71 | 43 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 5 | 82 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 55 | 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.
IBJHF's Valuation (4) 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 (2) 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 (4) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for IBJHF (89). This means that MCEM’s stock grew significantly faster than IBJHF’s over the last 12 months.
MCEM's Price Growth Rating (43) in the null industry is in the same range as IBJHF (71). This means that MCEM’s stock grew similarly to IBJHF’s over the last 12 months.
IBJHF's P/E Growth Rating (5) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for MCEM (82). This means that IBJHF’s stock grew significantly faster than MCEM’s over the last 12 months.
| IBJHF | MCEM | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | N/A | 12 days ago 73% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | N/A | 12 days ago 65% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 12 days ago 16% | 12 days ago 39% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 12 days ago 13% | 12 days ago 60% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | N/A | 20 days ago 61% |
| Declines ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | N/A | 12 days ago 70% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
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.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To IBJHF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IBJHF | 100% | N/A | ||
| SMID - IBJHF | 4% Poorly correlated | +0.02% | ||
| CTXXF - IBJHF | 2% Poorly correlated | -2.56% | ||
| HCMLF - IBJHF | 1% Poorly correlated | +0.43% | ||
| MCEM - IBJHF | 1% Poorly correlated | -0.68% | ||
| 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.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To MCEM | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MCEM | 100% | -0.68% | ||
| PPCLY - MCEM | 11% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| THYCY - MCEM | 1% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| IBJHF - MCEM | 1% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| JHIUF - MCEM | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| PSGTY - MCEM | -0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||