MNHFF vs TCLAF
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 MNHFF is a Hold and TCLAF 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).
MNHFF’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whileTCLAF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).
- MNHFF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
- TCLAF’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.
MNHFF’s TA Score shows that 2 TA indicator(s) are bullish while TCLAF’s TA Score has 4 bullish TA indicator(s).
- MNHFF’s TA Score: 2 bullish, 0 bearish.
- TCLAF’s TA Score: 4 bullish, 1 bearish.
Price Growth
MNHFF (@Containers/Packaging) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while TCLAF (@Containers/Packaging) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Containers/Packaging industry was +1.65%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -0.51%, and the average quarterly price growth was +4.11%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Containers/Packaging (+1.65% weekly)The containers/packing sector includes companies that manufacture containers (like plastic and aluminum food containers, glass bottles, metal cans, cardboard, storage and waste bags, giftwraps etc.) and provide packing services. Food-and-beverage and household products are major markets for this business. Several companies in this industry cater to international markets in addition to serving domestic customers. Consumer spending habits could potentially affect this industry’s performance. Some products, that use oil-based materials as inputs, are likely to see their costs of production get impacted (to some extent) by energy price movements. The ever-expanding e-commerce market has only supercharged the amount/frequency of goods shipped domestically and across borders, thereby creating ample potential opportunities for containers and packaging businesses. Ball Corporation, International Paper Company, Amcor Plc and Packaging Corporation of America are some of the largest U.S. companies in this industry.
| MNHFF | TCLAF | MNHFF / TCLAF | |
| Capitalization | 3.06B | 857M | 357% |
| EBITDA | 443M | 433M | 102% |
| Gain YTD | 0.000 | 0.204 | - |
| P/E Ratio | 13.46 | 9.83 | 137% |
| Revenue | 4.74B | 3B | 158% |
| Total Cash | 238M | 25.2M | 944% |
| Total Debt | 1.48B | 1.19B | 125% |
MNHFF | TCLAF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 2 | 28 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 85 Overvalued | 16 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 82 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 88 | 80 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 89 | 45 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 44 | 47 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | n/a | 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.
TCLAF's Valuation (16) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for MNHFF (85). This means that TCLAF’s stock grew significantly faster than MNHFF’s over the last 12 months.
TCLAF's Profit vs Risk Rating (82) in the null industry is in the same range as MNHFF (100). This means that TCLAF’s stock grew similarly to MNHFF’s over the last 12 months.
TCLAF's SMR Rating (80) in the null industry is in the same range as MNHFF (88). This means that TCLAF’s stock grew similarly to MNHFF’s over the last 12 months.
TCLAF's Price Growth Rating (45) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for MNHFF (89). This means that TCLAF’s stock grew somewhat faster than MNHFF’s over the last 12 months.
MNHFF's P/E Growth Rating (44) in the null industry is in the same range as TCLAF (47). This means that MNHFF’s stock grew similarly to TCLAF’s over the last 12 months.
| MNHFF | TCLAF | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | N/A | 8 days ago 65% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 8 days ago 7% | 8 days ago 64% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 8 days ago 9% | 8 days ago 72% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 8 days ago 6% | 8 days ago 58% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 8 days ago 9% | 8 days ago 59% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Declines ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | N/A | 8 days ago 63% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| 1 Day | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| MFs / NAME | Price $ | Chg $ | Chg % |
| MEMHX | 32.19 | 0.24 | +0.75% |
| MFS Emerging Markets Equity R4 | |||
| RYMAX | 44.41 | 0.27 | +0.61% |
| Rydex Telecommunications H | |||
| BEMCX | 8.14 | N/A | N/A |
| Brandes Emerging Markets Value C | |||
| NWZNX | 18.78 | -0.13 | -0.69% |
| Nationwide Loomis All Cap Gr Instl Svc | |||
| FGHMX | 104.81 | -0.90 | -0.85% |
| Fidelity Advisor Communication ServicesC | |||
MNHFF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that MNHFF and RPKIF have been poorly correlated (+9% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that MNHFF and RPKIF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To MNHFF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MNHFF | 100% | N/A | ||
| RPKIF - MNHFF | 9% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| TZPC - MNHFF | 8% Poorly correlated | +74.09% | ||
| SW - MNHFF | 4% Poorly correlated | +1.48% | ||
| SUMXF - MNHFF | 1% Poorly correlated | -1.14% | ||
| TCLAF - MNHFF | 1% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
TCLAF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that TCLAF and SEE have been poorly correlated (+22% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that TCLAF and SEE's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To TCLAF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TCLAF | 100% | N/A | ||
| SEE - TCLAF | 22% Poorly correlated | +0.92% | ||
| OI - TCLAF | 21% Poorly correlated | +1.56% | ||
| HOYFF - TCLAF | 20% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| SUMXF - TCLAF | 12% Poorly correlated | -1.14% | ||
| RPKIF - TCLAF | 8% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||