Advertisement
MRT vs PLGGF
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 MRT is a Hold and PLGGF 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).
MRT’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whilePLGGF’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- MRT’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- PLGGF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
Price Growth
MRT (@Packaged Software) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while PLGGF (@Packaged Software) price change was +3.30% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Packaged Software industry was +2.25%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +5.79%, and the average quarterly price growth was +47.96%.
Reported Earning Dates
MRT is expected to report earnings on Apr 29, 2025.
Industries' Descriptions
@Packaged Software (+2.25% weekly)Packaged software comprises multiple software programs bundled together and sold as a group. For example, Microsoft Office includes multiple applications such as Excel, Word, and PowerPoint. In some cases, buying a bundled product is cheaper than purchasing each item individually[s20] . Microsoft Corporation, Oracle Corp. and Adobe are some major American packaged software makers.
| MRT | PLGGF | MRT / PLGGF | |
| Capitalization | 39.8M | N/A | - |
| EBITDA | N/A | N/A | - |
| Gain YTD | -27.729 | -57.783 | 48% |
| P/E Ratio | N/A | N/A | - |
| Revenue | N/A | N/A | - |
| Total Cash | 3.97M | N/A | - |
| Total Debt | 28.4M | N/A | - |
MRT | PLGGF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 1 | 32 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 6 Undervalued | 44 Fair valued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 100 | 100 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 63 | 64 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 100 | 100 | |
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.
MRT's Valuation (6) in the Real Estate Investment Trusts industry is somewhat better than the same rating for PLGGF (44) in the null industry. This means that MRT’s stock grew somewhat faster than PLGGF’s over the last 12 months.
MRT's Profit vs Risk Rating (100) in the Real Estate Investment Trusts industry is in the same range as PLGGF (100) in the null industry. This means that MRT’s stock grew similarly to PLGGF’s over the last 12 months.
MRT's SMR Rating (100) in the Real Estate Investment Trusts industry is in the same range as PLGGF (100) in the null industry. This means that MRT’s stock grew similarly to PLGGF’s over the last 12 months.
MRT's Price Growth Rating (63) in the Real Estate Investment Trusts industry is in the same range as PLGGF (64) in the null industry. This means that MRT’s stock grew similarly to PLGGF’s over the last 12 months.
MRT's P/E Growth Rating (100) in the Real Estate Investment Trusts industry is in the same range as PLGGF (100) in the null industry. This means that MRT’s stock grew similarly to PLGGF’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 (%) |
Advertisement
MRT and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that MRT and CSGS have been poorly correlated (+32% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that MRT and CSGS's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To MRT | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MRT | 100% | -6.13% | ||
| CSGS - MRT | 32% Poorly correlated | -1.74% | ||
| APPS - MRT | 31% Poorly correlated | -14.61% | ||
| HCAT - MRT | 30% Poorly correlated | -1.10% | ||
| PDFS - MRT | 27% Poorly correlated | -1.71% | ||
| SAP - MRT | 27% Poorly correlated | -0.77% | ||
More | ||||
PLGGF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that PLGGF and RDVT have been poorly correlated (+30% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that PLGGF and RDVT's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To PLGGF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PLGGF | 100% | N/A | ||
| RDVT - PLGGF | 30% Poorly correlated | -0.52% | ||
| HCAT - PLGGF | 29% Poorly correlated | -1.10% | ||
| APPS - PLGGF | 29% Poorly correlated | -14.61% | ||
| KVYO - PLGGF | 28% Poorly correlated | -5.32% | ||
| MRT - PLGGF | 24% Poorly correlated | -6.13% | ||
More | ||||