MLFNF vs SGLJF
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 MLFNF is a Hold and SGLJF 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).
MLFNF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileSGLJF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).
- MLFNF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- SGLJF’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.
MLFNF’s TA Score shows that 5 TA indicator(s) are bullish.
- MLFNF’s TA Score: 5 bullish, 5 bearish.
Price Growth
MLFNF (@Food: Specialty/Candy) experienced а -6.25% price change this week, while SGLJF (@Food: Specialty/Candy) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Food: Specialty/Candy industry was -1.68%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +1.65%, and the average quarterly price growth was +17.95%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Food: Specialty/Candy (-1.68% weekly)A specialty/candy manufacturer specializes in one or more of the following: chocolate, candies, pasta, condiments, seasonings, among other items. Hershey Company, McCormick & Company and J.M. Smucker Company are some of the major firms in this segment. Demand for this industry’s products comes from both institutions/restaurants as well as households.
| MLFNF | SGLJF | MLFNF / SGLJF | |
| Capitalization | 2.53B | 2.09B | 121% |
| EBITDA | -67.46M | 1.18B | -6% |
| Gain YTD | -20.990 | -37.979 | 55% |
| P/E Ratio | 555.56 | 20.16 | 2,756% |
| Revenue | 4.79B | 6.8B | 70% |
| Total Cash | 79.4M | 517M | 15% |
| Total Debt | 1.93B | 2.63B | 74% |
MLFNF | SGLJF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 85 | 43 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 16 Undervalued | 18 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 87 | 65 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 75 | 78 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 98 | 69 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 50 | 30 |
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.
MLFNF's Valuation (16) in the null industry is in the same range as SGLJF (18). This means that MLFNF’s stock grew similarly to SGLJF’s over the last 12 months.
MLFNF's Profit vs Risk Rating (100) in the null industry is in the same range as SGLJF (100). This means that MLFNF’s stock grew similarly to SGLJF’s over the last 12 months.
SGLJF's SMR Rating (65) in the null industry is in the same range as MLFNF (87). This means that SGLJF’s stock grew similarly to MLFNF’s over the last 12 months.
MLFNF's Price Growth Rating (75) in the null industry is in the same range as SGLJF (78). This means that MLFNF’s stock grew similarly to SGLJF’s over the last 12 months.
SGLJF's P/E Growth Rating (69) in the null industry is in the same range as MLFNF (98). This means that SGLJF’s stock grew similarly to MLFNF’s over the last 12 months.
| MLFNF | |
|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 77% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 69% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 51% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 54% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 59% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 55% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | 22 days ago 62% |
| Declines ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 58% |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 70% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 56% |
MLFNF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that MLFNF and BRCC have been poorly correlated (+24% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that MLFNF and BRCC's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To MLFNF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MLFNF | 100% | -1.25% | ||
| BRCC - MLFNF | 24% Poorly correlated | +1.69% | ||
| SGLJF - MLFNF | 22% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| NCRA - MLFNF | 7% Poorly correlated | +30.64% | ||
| MRRTY - MLFNF | 2% Poorly correlated | -9.69% | ||
| NCHEY - MLFNF | 1% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
SGLJF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that SGLJF and KIKOF have been poorly correlated (+23% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that SGLJF and KIKOF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To SGLJF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SGLJF | 100% | N/A | ||
| KIKOF - SGLJF | 23% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| MLFNF - SGLJF | 22% Poorly correlated | -1.25% | ||
| SUEZY - SGLJF | 17% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| PRBZF - SGLJF | 10% Poorly correlated | -0.74% | ||
| PIFMY - SGLJF | 6% Poorly correlated | +5.60% | ||
More | ||||