MCCK vs RLLWF
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 MCCK is a Hold and RLLWF 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).
MCCK’s FA Score shows that 2 FA rating(s) are green whileRLLWF’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- MCCK’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
- RLLWF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
Price Growth
MCCK (@Building Products) experienced а -1.56% price change this week, while RLLWF (@Building Products) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Building Products industry was +1.32%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -6.87%, and the average quarterly price growth was -18.55%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Building Products (+1.32% weekly)The industry manufactures products used in the construction of residential and commercial buildings. The process involves using materials and other products, and processing them to create finished items such as doors, windows, light fittings, floor coverings, climate control products and other building components and home improvement products. Masco Corporation, Allegion PLC and Lennox International Inc. are major manufacturers of such products.
| MCCK | RLLWF | MCCK / RLLWF | |
| Capitalization | 159M | 3.01B | 5% |
| EBITDA | 22.8M | 242M | 9% |
| Gain YTD | -4.545 | -6.238 | 73% |
| P/E Ratio | 14.58 | 24.40 | 60% |
| Revenue | 351M | 1.23B | 28% |
| Total Cash | 58.1M | 28.4M | 205% |
| Total Debt | 10.2M | 237M | 4% |
MCCK | RLLWF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 94 | 38 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 67 Overvalued | 36 Fair valued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 55 | 78 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 8 | 92 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 46 | 76 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 6 | 69 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | n/a | 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.
RLLWF's Valuation (36) in the null industry is in the same range as MCCK (67). This means that RLLWF’s stock grew similarly to MCCK’s over the last 12 months.
MCCK's Profit vs Risk Rating (55) in the null industry is in the same range as RLLWF (78). This means that MCCK’s stock grew similarly to RLLWF’s over the last 12 months.
MCCK's SMR Rating (8) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for RLLWF (92). This means that MCCK’s stock grew significantly faster than RLLWF’s over the last 12 months.
MCCK's Price Growth Rating (46) in the null industry is in the same range as RLLWF (76). This means that MCCK’s stock grew similarly to RLLWF’s over the last 12 months.
MCCK's P/E Growth Rating (6) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for RLLWF (69). This means that MCCK’s stock grew somewhat faster than RLLWF’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 (%) |
MCCK and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that MCCK and TOTDY have been poorly correlated (+13% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that MCCK and TOTDY's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To MCCK | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MCCK | 100% | N/A | ||
| TOTDY - MCCK | 13% Poorly correlated | +0.06% | ||
| TOTDF - MCCK | 3% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| NPSGF - MCCK | 1% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| KGSPF - MCCK | -0% Poorly correlated | -1.20% | ||
| RLLWF - MCCK | -1% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
RLLWF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, RLLWF has been loosely correlated with AIRJ. These tickers have moved in lockstep 37% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if RLLWF jumps, then AIRJ could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To RLLWF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RLLWF | 100% | N/A | ||
| AIRJ - RLLWF | 37% Loosely correlated | +1.22% | ||
| NDRBF - RLLWF | 8% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| JSGRY - RLLWF | 3% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| TOTDY - RLLWF | 2% Poorly correlated | +0.06% | ||
| NPSGF - RLLWF | 1% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||