IVTBF
Price
$23.20
Change
-$1.10 (-4.53%)
Updated
Jan 13 closing price
Capitalization
12.86B
PYCFF
Price
$1.69
Change
+$0.20 (+13.42%)
Updated
Dec 9 closing price
Capitalization
38.01M
Ad is loading...

IVTBF vs PYCFF

Header iconIVTBF vs PYCFF Comparison
Open Charts IVTBF vs PYCFFBanner chart's image
INVESTMENTAKTIEBOLAGET LATOUR SHARE AK
Price$23.20
Change-$1.10 (-4.53%)
Volume$4K
Capitalization12.86B
Mount Logan Cap
Price$1.69
Change+$0.20 (+13.42%)
Volume$29K
Capitalization38.01M
IVTBF vs PYCFF Comparison Chart
Loading...
IVTBF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
PYCFF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
IVTBF vs. PYCFF commentary
Jan 20, 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 IVTBF is a Hold and PYCFF is a Hold.

Ad is loading...
COMPARISON
Comparison
Jan 20, 2025
Stock price -- (IVTBF: $23.20 vs. PYCFF: $1.69)
Brand notoriety: IVTBF and PYCFF are both not notable
Both companies represent the Investment Managers industry
Current volume relative to the 65-day Moving Average: IVTBF: 46% vs. PYCFF: 78%
Market capitalization -- IVTBF: $12.86B vs. PYCFF: $38.01M
IVTBF [@Investment Managers] is valued at $12.86B. PYCFF’s [@Investment Managers] market capitalization is $38.01M. The market cap for tickers in the [@Investment Managers] industry ranges from $124.17B to $0. The average market capitalization across the [@Investment Managers] industry is $5.97B.

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).

IVTBF’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whilePYCFF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).

  • IVTBF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
  • PYCFF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
According to our system of comparison, PYCFF is a better buy in the long-term than IVTBF.

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.

IVTBF’s TA Score shows that 0 TA indicator(s) are bullish while PYCFF’s TA Score has 2 bullish TA indicator(s).

  • IVTBF’s TA Score: 0 bullish, 2 bearish.
  • PYCFF’s TA Score: 2 bullish, 1 bearish.
According to our system of comparison, PYCFF is a better buy in the short-term than IVTBF.

Price Growth

IVTBF (@Investment Managers) experienced а -4.53% price change this week, while PYCFF (@Investment Managers) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.

The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Investment Managers industry was +2.49%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +2.40%, and the average quarterly price growth was +7.41%.

Industries' Descriptions

@Investment Managers (+2.49% weekly)

Investment Managers manage financial assets and other investments of clients. Management includes designing a short- or long-term strategy for buying/holding and selling of portfolio holdings. It can also include tax services and other aspects of financial planning as well. While it is perceived that the industry is faced with growing competition from robo-advisors/digital platforms and passive/ index-tracking funds, many investors still find value in actively managed in-person services that investment management companies often emphasize on. At the same time, many wealth managers are also incorporating digital initiatives/low cost options in addition to their in-person customized services. Their main sources of revenues are fees as a percentage of assets under management, in addition to a certain portion of clients’ gains from asset appreciation. BlackRock, Inc., Blackstone Group Inc and Brookfield Asset Management are some of the major investment management companies.

SUMMARIES
Loading...
FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
IVTBF($12.9B) has a higher market cap than PYCFF($38M). IVTBF has higher P/E ratio than PYCFF: IVTBF (35.46) vs PYCFF (2.05). PYCFF YTD gains are higher at: 0.000 vs. IVTBF (-5.537). IVTBF has higher annual earnings (EBITDA): 5.97B vs. PYCFF (-8.84M). IVTBF has more cash in the bank: 1.51B vs. PYCFF (200M). PYCFF has less debt than IVTBF: PYCFF (76.3M) vs IVTBF (14.7B). IVTBF has higher revenues than PYCFF: IVTBF (24B) vs PYCFF (183M).
IVTBFPYCFFIVTBF / PYCFF
Capitalization12.9B38M33,947%
EBITDA5.97B-8.84M-67,492%
Gain YTD-5.5370.000-
P/E Ratio35.462.051,731%
Revenue24B183M13,115%
Total Cash1.51B200M753%
Total Debt14.7B76.3M19,266%
FUNDAMENTALS RATINGS
PYCFF: Fundamental Ratings
PYCFF
OUTLOOK RATING
1..100
50
VALUATION
overvalued / fair valued / undervalued
1..100
25
Undervalued
PROFIT vs RISK RATING
1..100
100
SMR RATING
1..100
92
PRICE GROWTH RATING
1..100
43
P/E GROWTH RATING
1..100
80
SEASONALITY SCORE
1..100
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.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
IVTBFPYCFF
RSI
ODDS (%)
N/A
N/A
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bullish Trend 12 days ago
14%
Momentum
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 12 days ago
50%
N/A
MACD
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 12 days ago
25%
Bearish Trend 12 days ago
29%
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 12 days ago
24%
Bullish Trend 12 days ago
20%
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 12 days ago
4%
Bullish Trend 12 days ago
20%
Advances
ODDS (%)
N/A
N/A
Declines
ODDS (%)
N/A
N/A
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
N/A
N/A
Aroon
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bullish Trend 12 days ago
33%
View a ticker or compare two or three
Ad is loading...
IVTBF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
PYCFF
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 %
LDMIX13.430.08
+0.60%
Lazard Developing Markets Equity Instl
IRPSX11.060.06
+0.55%
VY® T. Rowe Price Equity Income S
HDGBX23.770.12
+0.51%
Hartford Dividend and Growth HLS IB
CNWEX76.410.35
+0.46%
American Funds New World 529E
BMSVX14.670.06
+0.41%
MFS Blended Research Mid Cap Eq R4

IVTBF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that IVTBF and SVVC have been poorly correlated (+21% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that IVTBF and SVVC's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To IVTBF
1D Price
Change %
IVTBF100%
N/A
SVVC - IVTBF
21%
Poorly correlated
+30.29%
WNDLF - IVTBF
13%
Poorly correlated
N/A
STEP - IVTBF
5%
Poorly correlated
+0.80%
IOOFF - IVTBF
0%
Poorly correlated
N/A
KRMCF - IVTBF
0%
Poorly correlated
N/A
More

PYCFF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that PYCFF and GCMG have been poorly correlated (+9% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that PYCFF and GCMG's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To PYCFF
1D Price
Change %
PYCFF100%
N/A
GCMG - PYCFF
9%
Poorly correlated
+0.08%
GBLBF - PYCFF
5%
Poorly correlated
+0.75%
WNDLF - PYCFF
1%
Poorly correlated
N/A
JFHHF - PYCFF
0%
Poorly correlated
N/A
IVTBF - PYCFF
0%
Poorly correlated
N/A
More