INGVF vs NAUBF
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 INGVF is a Hold and NAUBF 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).
INGVF’s FA Score shows that 2 FA rating(s) are green whileNAUBF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).
- INGVF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
- NAUBF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
Price Growth
INGVF (@Major Banks) experienced а -6.13% price change this week, while NAUBF (@Major Banks) price change was -1.97% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Major Banks industry was -0.47%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +0.78%, and the average quarterly price growth was +8.32%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Major Banks (-0.47% weekly)Major banks are among the biggest companies in the world, often times with global reach and market capitalizations in the multi-billions. Large banks often have multiple arms spanning different disciplines, from deposits, to investment banking, to wealth management and insurance. The biggest banks often have key competitive advantages over smaller players in the industry in terms of brand recognition, cost of capital, and efficiency. Think J.P. Morgan, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Citigroup.
| INGVF | NAUBF | INGVF / NAUBF | |
| Capitalization | 52.7B | 59.6B | 88% |
| EBITDA | N/A | N/A | - |
| Gain YTD | 0.246 | 22.729 | 1% |
| P/E Ratio | 9.91 | 12.52 | 79% |
| Revenue | 19.6B | 19.9B | 98% |
| Total Cash | N/A | N/A | - |
| Total Debt | 125B | 139B | 90% |
INGVF | NAUBF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 28 Undervalued | 95 Overvalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 59 | 60 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 3 | 3 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 63 | 48 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 76 | 51 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 75 | 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.
INGVF's Valuation (28) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for NAUBF (95). This means that INGVF’s stock grew significantly faster than NAUBF’s over the last 12 months.
INGVF's Profit vs Risk Rating (59) in the null industry is in the same range as NAUBF (60). This means that INGVF’s stock grew similarly to NAUBF’s over the last 12 months.
INGVF's SMR Rating (3) in the null industry is in the same range as NAUBF (3). This means that INGVF’s stock grew similarly to NAUBF’s over the last 12 months.
NAUBF's Price Growth Rating (48) in the null industry is in the same range as INGVF (63). This means that NAUBF’s stock grew similarly to INGVF’s over the last 12 months.
NAUBF's P/E Growth Rating (51) in the null industry is in the same range as INGVF (76). This means that NAUBF’s stock grew similarly to INGVF’s over the last 12 months.
| RSI ODDS (%) |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) |
| Momentum ODDS (%) |
| MACD ODDS (%) |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) |
| Advances ODDS (%) |
| Declines ODDS (%) |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) |
| Aroon ODDS (%) |
| 1 Day | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| ETFs / NAME | Price $ | Chg $ | Chg % |
| KWEB | 30.26 | 0.23 | +0.77% |
| KraneShares CSI China Internet ETF | |||
| FEMB | 26.94 | 0.03 | +0.11% |
| First Trust Emerging Mkts Lcl Ccy Bd ETF | |||
| VCEB | 62.63 | 0.01 | +0.02% |
| Vanguard ESG US Corporate Bond ETF | |||
| JCHI | 45.00 | N/A | N/A |
| JPMorgan Active China ETF | |||
| YDEC | 23.07 | -0.08 | -0.34% |
| FT Cboe Vest Intl Eq Mod Bffr ETF Dec | |||
INGVF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that INGVF and RY have been poorly correlated (+28% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that INGVF and RY's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To INGVF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| INGVF | 100% | N/A | ||
| RY - INGVF | 28% Poorly correlated | -0.75% | ||
| ANZGF - INGVF | 28% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| ING - INGVF | 27% Poorly correlated | +1.68% | ||
| BNS - INGVF | 26% Poorly correlated | +0.22% | ||
| BMO - INGVF | 26% Poorly correlated | -0.24% | ||
More | ||||
NAUBF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that NAUBF and FANDF have been poorly correlated (+26% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that NAUBF and FANDF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To NAUBF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NAUBF | 100% | N/A | ||
| FANDF - NAUBF | 26% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| MBFJF - NAUBF | 11% Poorly correlated | +1.29% | ||
| SCBFF - NAUBF | 8% Poorly correlated | -4.58% | ||
| IDCBY - NAUBF | 6% Poorly correlated | -0.20% | ||
| INGVF - NAUBF | 5% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||