Advertisement
LRLCF vs PIGEF
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 LRLCF is a Hold and PIGEF 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).
LRLCF’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whilePIGEF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).
- LRLCF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
- PIGEF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 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.
LRLCF’s TA Score shows that 6 TA indicator(s) are bullish.
- LRLCF’s TA Score: 6 bullish, 3 bearish.
Price Growth
LRLCF (@Household/Personal Care) experienced а -2.60% price change this week, while PIGEF (@Household/Personal Care) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Household/Personal Care industry was -1.07%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +2.89%, and the average quarterly price growth was +4.70%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Household/Personal Care (-1.07% weekly)Household/Personal Care companies sell products for home cleaning and/or personal hygiene and grooming purposes. Products of this industry include detergents, shampoos, soaps, cosmetics, fabric conditioners and infant care fragrances. Procter & Gamble, Unilever, Estee Lauder and Colgate-Palmolive are some of the biggest names in the business. A lot of the products become a necessary part of people’s daily routine, and therefore the industry is relatively less vulnerable to macroeconomic downturns. At the same time, product quality, consumer safety, and ease of use are extremely critical factors for a company to survive competition and earn recognition in this industry.
| LRLCF | PIGEF | LRLCF / PIGEF | |
| Capitalization | 250B | 3.96B | 6,321% |
| EBITDA | 9.22B | 177M | 5,211% |
| Gain YTD | 23.380 | 12.661 | 185% |
| P/E Ratio | 38.61 | 42.82 | 90% |
| Revenue | 38.3B | 922M | 4,154% |
| Total Cash | 2.64B | 318M | 831% |
| Total Debt | 5.65B | 46.6M | 12,127% |
LRLCF | PIGEF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 12 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 55 Fair valued | 19 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 56 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 93 | 75 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 50 | 52 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 66 | 66 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 50 | 50 |
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.
PIGEF's Valuation (19) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for LRLCF (55). This means that PIGEF’s stock grew somewhat faster than LRLCF’s over the last 12 months.
LRLCF's Profit vs Risk Rating (56) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for PIGEF (100). This means that LRLCF’s stock grew somewhat faster than PIGEF’s over the last 12 months.
PIGEF's SMR Rating (75) in the null industry is in the same range as LRLCF (93). This means that PIGEF’s stock grew similarly to LRLCF’s over the last 12 months.
LRLCF's Price Growth Rating (50) in the null industry is in the same range as PIGEF (52). This means that LRLCF’s stock grew similarly to PIGEF’s over the last 12 months.
LRLCF's P/E Growth Rating (66) in the null industry is in the same range as PIGEF (66). This means that LRLCF’s stock grew similarly to PIGEF’s over the last 12 months.
| LRLCF | PIGEF | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 1 day ago 71% | N/A |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 1 day ago 53% | N/A |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 1 day ago 66% | N/A |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 1 day ago 60% | 1 day ago 7% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 1 day ago 56% | 1 day ago 5% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | 1 day ago 59% | N/A |
| Declines ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 59% | N/A |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | 1 day ago 76% | N/A |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 1 day ago 61% | N/A |
Advertisement
LRLCF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, LRLCF has been loosely correlated with LRLCY. These tickers have moved in lockstep 57% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if LRLCF jumps, then LRLCY could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To LRLCF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LRLCF | 100% | +1.96% | ||
| LRLCY - LRLCF | 57% Loosely correlated | -0.54% | ||
| COTY - LRLCF | 41% Loosely correlated | -0.40% | ||
| BDRFY - LRLCF | 38% Loosely correlated | -1.07% | ||
| EL - LRLCF | 35% Loosely correlated | +0.19% | ||
| HENOY - LRLCF | 29% Poorly correlated | -0.76% | ||
More | ||||
PIGEF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that PIGEF and LRLCF have been poorly correlated (+4% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that PIGEF and LRLCF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To PIGEF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PIGEF | 100% | N/A | ||
| LRLCF - PIGEF | 4% Poorly correlated | +1.96% | ||
| LRLCY - PIGEF | 2% Poorly correlated | -0.54% | ||
| NBBTF - PIGEF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| PGID - PIGEF | -0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| PORBF - PIGEF | -0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||