IPHLF vs MRLWF
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 IPHLF is a Hold and MRLWF 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).
IPHLF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileMRLWF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).
- IPHLF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- MRLWF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
Price Growth
IPHLF (@Miscellaneous Commercial Services) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while MRLWF (@Miscellaneous Commercial Services) price change was -2.91% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Miscellaneous Commercial Services industry was -2.43%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +0.06%, and the average quarterly price growth was -1.20%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Miscellaneous Commercial Services (-2.43% weekly)The sector produces general business services, and are not classified elsewhere. For example, FleetCor Technologies provides fuel cards and workforce payment products and services; Copart, Inc. provides online vehicle auction and remarketing services across various nations; Equifax Inc. collects and aggregates credit information on consumers and businesses worldwide, along with selling credit monitoring and fraud-prevention services. Many of the companies in this category have multi-billion market capitalizations.
| IPHLF | MRLWF | IPHLF / MRLWF | |
| Capitalization | 1.25B | 700M | 178% |
| EBITDA | 131M | 49.3M | 266% |
| Gain YTD | -11.600 | 147.624 | -8% |
| P/E Ratio | 40.32 | 3333.33 | 1% |
| Revenue | 412M | 404M | 102% |
| Total Cash | 88.4M | 19.8M | 446% |
| Total Debt | 161M | 204M | 79% |
| RSI ODDS (%) |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) |
| Momentum ODDS (%) |
| MACD ODDS (%) |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) |
| Advances ODDS (%) |
| Declines ODDS (%) |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) |
| Aroon ODDS (%) |
IPHLF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, IPHLF has been loosely correlated with CWPS. These tickers have moved in lockstep 49% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if IPHLF jumps, then CWPS could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To IPHLF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IPHLF | 100% | N/A | ||
| CWPS - IPHLF | 49% Loosely correlated | N/A | ||
| TLPFY - IPHLF | 47% Loosely correlated | +1.22% | ||
| TLPFF - IPHLF | 46% Loosely correlated | -1.43% | ||
| ADT - IPHLF | 25% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| WBQNL - IPHLF | 8% Poorly correlated | -5.86% | ||
More | ||||
MRLWF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, MRLWF has been loosely correlated with CPBLF. These tickers have moved in lockstep 50% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if MRLWF jumps, then CPBLF could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To MRLWF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MRLWF | 100% | -3.04% | ||
| CPBLF - MRLWF | 50% Loosely correlated | N/A | ||
| DIGTF - MRLWF | 46% Loosely correlated | N/A | ||
| KPGHF - MRLWF | 4% Poorly correlated | +2.98% | ||
| NPLS - MRLWF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| IPHLF - MRLWF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||