Advertisement
IFCZF vs NHOLF
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 IFCZF is a Hold and NHOLF 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).
IFCZF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileNHOLF’s FA Score has 2 green FA rating(s).
- IFCZF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- NHOLF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 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.
IFCZF’s TA Score shows that 4 TA indicator(s) are bullish while NHOLF’s TA Score has 4 bullish TA indicator(s).
- IFCZF’s TA Score: 4 bullish, 4 bearish.
- NHOLF’s TA Score: 4 bullish, 3 bearish.
Price Growth
IFCZF (@Property/Casualty Insurance) experienced а -2.88% price change this week, while NHOLF (@Property/Casualty Insurance) price change was -10.43% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Property/Casualty Insurance industry was -1.01%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +1.44%, and the average quarterly price growth was +9.08%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Property/Casualty Insurance (-1.01% weekly)Property and casualty companies insure against accidents of non-physical harm, such as lawsuits, damage to personal assets, car crashes and more. Progressive Corporation, Travelers Companies, Inc. and Allstate Corporation are some of the biggest providers of such products.
| IFCZF | NHOLF | IFCZF / NHOLF | |
| Capitalization | 33.8B | 28.4B | 119% |
| EBITDA | N/A | N/A | - |
| Gain YTD | 3.332 | 23.832 | 14% |
| P/E Ratio | 20.00 | 18.24 | 110% |
| Revenue | 24.7B | 5.15T | 0% |
| Total Cash | 19.5B | 1.16T | 2% |
| Total Debt | 5.43B | 694B | 1% |
IFCZF | NHOLF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 53 | 94 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 60 Fair valued | 36 Fair valued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 24 | 28 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 95 | 100 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 62 | 60 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 61 | 7 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 65 | 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.
NHOLF's Valuation (36) in the null industry is in the same range as IFCZF (60). This means that NHOLF’s stock grew similarly to IFCZF’s over the last 12 months.
IFCZF's Profit vs Risk Rating (24) in the null industry is in the same range as NHOLF (28). This means that IFCZF’s stock grew similarly to NHOLF’s over the last 12 months.
IFCZF's SMR Rating (95) in the null industry is in the same range as NHOLF (100). This means that IFCZF’s stock grew similarly to NHOLF’s over the last 12 months.
NHOLF's Price Growth Rating (60) in the null industry is in the same range as IFCZF (62). This means that NHOLF’s stock grew similarly to IFCZF’s over the last 12 months.
NHOLF's P/E Growth Rating (7) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for IFCZF (61). This means that NHOLF’s stock grew somewhat faster than IFCZF’s over the last 12 months.
| IFCZF | NHOLF | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 62% | 2 days ago 20% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 48% | 2 days ago 24% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 37% | 2 days ago 18% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 33% | 2 days ago 30% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 27% | 2 days ago 17% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 26% | 2 days ago 15% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | 8 days ago 49% | N/A |
| Declines ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 30% | N/A |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 38% | N/A |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 13% | 2 days ago 18% |
Advertisement
IFCZF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, IFCZF has been loosely correlated with PLMR. These tickers have moved in lockstep 34% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if IFCZF jumps, then PLMR could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To IFCZF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IFCZF | 100% | -1.91% | ||
| PLMR - IFCZF | 34% Loosely correlated | -2.25% | ||
| UFCS - IFCZF | 31% Poorly correlated | -1.33% | ||
| FRFHF - IFCZF | 29% Poorly correlated | +0.34% | ||
| MCY - IFCZF | 24% Poorly correlated | -0.07% | ||
| BNT - IFCZF | 23% Poorly correlated | -1.81% | ||
More | ||||
NHOLF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that NHOLF and IFCZF have been poorly correlated (+16% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that NHOLF and IFCZF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To NHOLF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NHOLF | 100% | -0.80% | ||
| IFCZF - NHOLF | 16% Poorly correlated | -1.91% | ||
| IAUGF - NHOLF | 11% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| MSADY - NHOLF | 9% Poorly correlated | -1.19% | ||
| PPCCY - NHOLF | 7% Poorly correlated | -1.08% | ||
| MSADF - NHOLF | 4% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||