IBJHF
Price
$2.06
Change
+$0.61 (+42.07%)
Updated
Mar 10 closing price
Capitalization
714.7M
PPCLY
Price
$0.55
Change
-$0.03 (-5.17%)
Updated
Sep 19 closing price
Capitalization
459.2M
Interact to see
Advertisement

IBJHF vs PPCLY

Header iconIBJHF vs PPCLY Comparison
Open Charts IBJHF vs PPCLYBanner chart's image
Ibstock
Price$2.06
Change+$0.61 (+42.07%)
Volume$10K
Capitalization714.7M
PPC
Price$0.55
Change-$0.03 (-5.17%)
Volume$5.4K
Capitalization459.2M
IBJHF vs PPCLY Comparison Chart in %
Loading...
PPCLY
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
IBJHF vs. PPCLY commentary
Sep 29, 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 PPCLY is a Hold.

Interact to see
Advertisement
COMPARISON
Comparison
Sep 29, 2025
Stock price -- (IBJHF: $2.06 vs. PPCLY: $0.55)
Brand notoriety: IBJHF and PPCLY are both not notable
Both companies represent the Construction Materials industry
Current volume relative to the 65-day Moving Average: IBJHF: 100% vs. PPCLY: 66%
Market capitalization -- IBJHF: $714.7M vs. PPCLY: $459.2M
IBJHF [@Construction Materials] is valued at $714.7M. PPCLY’s [@Construction Materials] market capitalization is $459.2M. The market cap for tickers in the [@Construction Materials] industry ranges from $76.25B to $0. The average market capitalization across the [@Construction Materials] industry is $9.85B.

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 whilePPCLY’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).

  • IBJHF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
  • PPCLY’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
According to our system of comparison, PPCLY 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.

PPCLY’s TA Score shows that 2 TA indicator(s) are bullish.

  • PPCLY’s TA Score: 2 bullish, 5 bearish.

Price Growth

IBJHF (@Construction Materials) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while PPCLY (@Construction Materials) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.

The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Construction Materials industry was -0.60%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -0.50%, and the average quarterly price growth was +17.55%.

Industries' Descriptions

@Construction Materials (-0.60% 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
IBJHF($715M) has a higher market cap than PPCLY($459M). IBJHF has higher P/E ratio than PPCLY: IBJHF (39.92) vs PPCLY (14.91). IBJHF YTD gains are higher at: 42.069 vs. PPCLY (35.150). PPCLY has higher annual earnings (EBITDA): 1.45B vs. IBJHF (66.8M). PPCLY has higher revenues than IBJHF: PPCLY (9.87B) vs IBJHF (381M).
IBJHFPPCLYIBJHF / PPCLY
Capitalization715M459M156%
EBITDA66.8M1.45B5%
Gain YTD42.06935.150120%
P/E Ratio39.9214.91268%
Revenue381M9.87B4%
Total Cash22.6MN/A-
Total Debt200MN/A-
FUNDAMENTALS RATINGS
IBJHF vs PPCLY: Fundamental Ratings
IBJHF
PPCLY
OUTLOOK RATING
1..100
5050
VALUATION
overvalued / fair valued / undervalued
1..100
11
Undervalued
7
Undervalued
PROFIT vs RISK RATING
1..100
9844
SMR RATING
1..100
9088
PRICE GROWTH RATING
1..100
5248
P/E GROWTH RATING
1..100
1098
SEASONALITY SCORE
1..100
7550

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.

PPCLY's Valuation (7) in the null industry is in the same range as IBJHF (11). This means that PPCLY’s stock grew similarly to IBJHF’s over the last 12 months.

PPCLY's Profit vs Risk Rating (44) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for IBJHF (98). This means that PPCLY’s stock grew somewhat faster than IBJHF’s over the last 12 months.

PPCLY's SMR Rating (88) in the null industry is in the same range as IBJHF (90). This means that PPCLY’s stock grew similarly to IBJHF’s over the last 12 months.

PPCLY's Price Growth Rating (48) in the null industry is in the same range as IBJHF (52). This means that PPCLY’s stock grew similarly to IBJHF’s over the last 12 months.

IBJHF's P/E Growth Rating (10) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for PPCLY (98). This means that IBJHF’s stock grew significantly faster than PPCLY’s over the last 12 months.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
IBJHFPPCLY
RSI
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
50%
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
48%
Momentum
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
25%
MACD
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
24%
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
15%
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
43%
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
13%
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
23%
Advances
ODDS (%)
N/A
N/A
Declines
ODDS (%)
N/A
N/A
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
N/A
N/A
Aroon
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
16%
View a ticker or compare two or three
Interact to see
Advertisement
PPCLY
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 %
BPTIX225.264.25
+1.92%
Baron Partners Institutional
FNKCX16.540.29
+1.78%
Frank Value C
BSCAX19.300.33
+1.74%
Brandes Small Cap Value A
KGIRX18.190.14
+0.78%
Kopernik International Investor
HCMGX33.720.25
+0.75%
HCM Tactical Plus 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.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To IBJHF
1D Price
Change %
IBJHF100%
N/A
SMID - IBJHF
4%
Poorly correlated
-0.53%
CTXXF - IBJHF
2%
Poorly correlated
+1.76%
HCMLF - IBJHF
1%
Poorly correlated
N/A
MCEM - IBJHF
1%
Poorly correlated
+1.15%
LKSGF - IBJHF
1%
Poorly correlated
N/A
More

PPCLY and

Correlation & Price change

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

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To PPCLY
1D Price
Change %
PPCLY100%
N/A
MCEM - PPCLY
11%
Poorly correlated
+1.15%
SMID - PPCLY
7%
Poorly correlated
-0.53%
PSGTY - PPCLY
4%
Poorly correlated
N/A
IBJHF - PPCLY
0%
Poorly correlated
N/A
IMYSF - PPCLY
0%
Poorly correlated
N/A
More