Advertisement
IBJHF vs SMID
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 SMID is a StrongBuy.
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 whileSMID’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- IBJHF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
- SMID’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.
SMID’s TA Score shows that 4 TA indicator(s) are bullish.
- SMID’s TA Score: 4 bullish, 6 bearish.
Price Growth
IBJHF (@Construction Materials) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while SMID (@Construction Materials) price change was -16.54% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Construction Materials industry was -0.95%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -0.84%, and the average quarterly price growth was +16.58%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Construction Materials (-0.95% 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 | SMID | IBJHF / SMID | |
| Capitalization | 748M | 191M | 392% |
| EBITDA | 66.8M | 18.4M | 363% |
| Gain YTD | 42.069 | -18.826 | -223% |
| P/E Ratio | 39.92 | 15.90 | 251% |
| Revenue | 381M | 91M | 419% |
| Total Cash | 22.6M | 7.1M | 318% |
| Total Debt | 200M | 4.86M | 4,114% |
IBJHF | SMID | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 47 | 64 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 11 Undervalued | 69 Overvalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 98 | 49 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 90 | 34 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 52 | 58 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 10 | 97 | |
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.
IBJHF's Valuation (11) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for SMID (69). This means that IBJHF’s stock grew somewhat faster than SMID’s over the last 12 months.
SMID's Profit vs Risk Rating (49) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for IBJHF (98). This means that SMID’s stock grew somewhat faster than IBJHF’s over the last 12 months.
SMID's SMR Rating (34) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for IBJHF (90). This means that SMID’s stock grew somewhat faster than IBJHF’s over the last 12 months.
IBJHF's Price Growth Rating (52) in the null industry is in the same range as SMID (58). This means that IBJHF’s stock grew similarly to SMID’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 SMID (97). This means that IBJHF’s stock grew significantly faster than SMID’s over the last 12 months.
| IBJHF | SMID | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | N/A | 2 days ago 80% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | N/A | 2 days ago 77% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | N/A | 4 days ago 76% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 15% | 2 days ago 81% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 13% | 2 days ago 83% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | N/A | 2 days ago 82% |
| Declines ODDS (%) | N/A | 4 days ago 83% |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | N/A | 2 days ago 88% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | N/A | 2 days ago 84% |
Advertisement
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 | +0.31% | ||
| CTXXF - IBJHF | 2% Poorly correlated | +4.50% | ||
| HCMLF - IBJHF | 1% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| MCEM - IBJHF | 1% Poorly correlated | -3.85% | ||
| LKSGF - IBJHF | 1% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
SMID and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, SMID has been loosely correlated with BCC. These tickers have moved in lockstep 52% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if SMID jumps, then BCC could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To SMID | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SMID | 100% | +0.31% | ||
| BCC - SMID | 52% Loosely correlated | -1.39% | ||
| EXP - SMID | 45% Loosely correlated | +0.53% | ||
| USLM - SMID | 45% Loosely correlated | +1.18% | ||
| KNF - SMID | 44% Loosely correlated | -0.50% | ||
| CRH - SMID | 39% Loosely correlated | -0.73% | ||
More | ||||