MCCRF vs PLSDF
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 MCCRF is a Hold and PLSDF 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).
MCCRF’s FA Score shows that 2 FA rating(s) are green whilePLSDF’s FA Score has 2 green FA rating(s).
- MCCRF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
- PLSDF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
Price Growth
MCCRF (@Oilfield Services/Equipment) experienced а +0.46% price change this week, while PLSDF (@Oilfield Services/Equipment) price change was +4.24% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Oilfield Services/Equipment industry was +3.27%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +9.37%, and the average quarterly price growth was +35.92%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Oilfield Services/Equipment (+3.27% weekly)The oilfield services/equipment industry is involved in providing various equipment and services to oil and natural gas producers. These companies rent drilling rigs and/or provide services to build and maintain oil and gas wells. The performance of this industry is dependent on demand for oil and natural gas, which in turn is often driven by macroeconomic conditions or business cycles. Schlumberger NV, Halliburton Company, and Baker Hughes are some of the biggest oilfield services companies.
| MCCRF | PLSDF | MCCRF / PLSDF | |
| Capitalization | 31.4M | 82.4M | 38% |
| EBITDA | 11.5M | 14.9M | 77% |
| Gain YTD | 38.426 | 14.261 | 269% |
| P/E Ratio | 4.72 | 39.84 | 12% |
| Revenue | 52.4M | 21.8M | 240% |
| Total Cash | 21.5M | 9.69M | 222% |
| Total Debt | 10.1M | 327K | 3,089% |
MCCRF | PLSDF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 91 | 23 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 28 Undervalued | 33 Fair valued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 3 | 98 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 56 | 24 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 36 | 60 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 79 | 44 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 50 | 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.
MCCRF's Valuation (28) in the null industry is in the same range as PLSDF (33). This means that MCCRF’s stock grew similarly to PLSDF’s over the last 12 months.
MCCRF's Profit vs Risk Rating (3) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for PLSDF (98). This means that MCCRF’s stock grew significantly faster than PLSDF’s over the last 12 months.
PLSDF's SMR Rating (24) in the null industry is in the same range as MCCRF (56). This means that PLSDF’s stock grew similarly to MCCRF’s over the last 12 months.
MCCRF's Price Growth Rating (36) in the null industry is in the same range as PLSDF (60). This means that MCCRF’s stock grew similarly to PLSDF’s over the last 12 months.
PLSDF's P/E Growth Rating (44) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for MCCRF (79). This means that PLSDF’s stock grew somewhat faster than MCCRF’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 (%) |
MCCRF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that MCCRF and PLSDF have been poorly correlated (+9% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that MCCRF and PLSDF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To MCCRF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MCCRF | 100% | +1.92% | ||
| PLSDF - MCCRF | 9% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| HGHAF - MCCRF | 5% Poorly correlated | -0.58% | ||
| KEGX - MCCRF | 5% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| HNTIF - MCCRF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| NSFDF - MCCRF | -0% Poorly correlated | -13.84% | ||
More | ||||
PLSDF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that PLSDF and MCCRF have been poorly correlated (+9% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that PLSDF and MCCRF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To PLSDF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PLSDF | 100% | N/A | ||
| MCCRF - PLSDF | 9% Poorly correlated | +1.92% | ||
| POFCY - PLSDF | 8% Poorly correlated | -1.07% | ||
| NSFDF - PLSDF | 7% Poorly correlated | -13.84% | ||
| POFCF - PLSDF | 5% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| PKDC - PLSDF | 1% Poorly correlated | +0.58% | ||
More | ||||