Advertisement
LQWDF vs TMNSF
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 LQWDF is a Hold and TMNSF 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).
LQWDF’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whileTMNSF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).
- LQWDF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
- TMNSF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
Price Growth
LQWDF (@Packaged Software) experienced а +19.44% price change this week, while TMNSF (@Packaged Software) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Packaged Software industry was +2.45%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +8.80%, and the average quarterly price growth was +26.47%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Packaged Software (+2.45% weekly)Packaged software comprises multiple software programs bundled together and sold as a group. For example, Microsoft Office includes multiple applications such as Excel, Word, and PowerPoint. In some cases, buying a bundled product is cheaper than purchasing each item individually[s20] . Microsoft Corporation, Oracle Corp. and Adobe are some major American packaged software makers.
| LQWDF | TMNSF | LQWDF / TMNSF | |
| Capitalization | 2.93M | 6.18B | 0% |
| EBITDA | -899.86K | 311M | -0% |
| Gain YTD | 24.161 | 4.807 | 503% |
| P/E Ratio | 9.25 | 50.00 | 19% |
| Revenue | 4.88K | 955M | 0% |
| Total Cash | 187K | 112M | 0% |
| Total Debt | 118K | 841M | 0% |
LQWDF | TMNSF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 17 | 41 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 97 Overvalued | 11 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 96 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 92 | 40 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 34 | 57 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 100 | 65 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | n/a | 65 |
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.
TMNSF's Valuation (11) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for LQWDF (97). This means that TMNSF’s stock grew significantly faster than LQWDF’s over the last 12 months.
LQWDF's Profit vs Risk Rating (96) in the null industry is in the same range as TMNSF (100). This means that LQWDF’s stock grew similarly to TMNSF’s over the last 12 months.
TMNSF's SMR Rating (40) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for LQWDF (92). This means that TMNSF’s stock grew somewhat faster than LQWDF’s over the last 12 months.
LQWDF's Price Growth Rating (34) in the null industry is in the same range as TMNSF (57). This means that LQWDF’s stock grew similarly to TMNSF’s over the last 12 months.
TMNSF's P/E Growth Rating (65) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for LQWDF (100). This means that TMNSF’s stock grew somewhat faster than LQWDF’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 (%) |
Advertisement
LQWDF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, LQWDF has been loosely correlated with BMR. These tickers have moved in lockstep 35% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if LQWDF jumps, then BMR could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To LQWDF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LQWDF | 100% | +1.65% | ||
| BMR - LQWDF | 35% Loosely correlated | +1.59% | ||
| AGYS - LQWDF | 31% Poorly correlated | -1.54% | ||
| LSPKF - LQWDF | 28% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| TREIF - LQWDF | 25% Poorly correlated | -6.54% | ||
| XIGMF - LQWDF | 25% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
TMNSF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, TMNSF has been loosely correlated with TMSNY. These tickers have moved in lockstep 46% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if TMNSF jumps, then TMSNY could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To TMNSF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TMNSF | 100% | N/A | ||
| TMSNY - TMNSF | 46% Loosely correlated | +2.32% | ||
| FSLY - TMNSF | 30% Poorly correlated | -0.52% | ||
| NTWK - TMNSF | 24% Poorly correlated | +3.19% | ||
| LQWDF - TMNSF | 24% Poorly correlated | +1.65% | ||
| HPTO - TMNSF | 22% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||