MXGBF vs SLLFF
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 MXGBF is a Hold and SLLFF 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).
MXGBF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileSLLFF’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- MXGBF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- SLLFF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 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.
MXGBF’s TA Score shows that 3 TA indicator(s) are bullish while SLLFF’s TA Score has 2 bullish TA indicator(s).
- MXGBF’s TA Score: 3 bullish, 1 bearish.
- SLLFF’s TA Score: 2 bullish, 1 bearish.
Price Growth
MXGBF (@Beverages: Alcoholic) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while SLLFF (@Beverages: Alcoholic) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Beverages: Alcoholic industry was -1.15%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -4.43%, and the average quarterly price growth was -14.32%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Beverages: Alcoholic (-1.15% weekly)The alcoholic beverage market includes beer, wine, and spirits. From $230 billion in 2015, the industry has grown to around $250 billion by 2019. In recent years, alcoholic beverage makers have been looking to expand distribution and purchase channels, such as through online stores (e.g. e-commerce platform Drizly) and convenience stores. Anheuser-Busch In Bev and Diageo are major global alcoholic beverage companies, while U.S.-owned companies include Constellation Brands and Brown-Forman Corp. among several others.
| MXGBF | SLLFF | MXGBF / SLLFF | |
| Capitalization | 15.2B | 60.9M | 24,959% |
| EBITDA | 774M | -2.2M | -35,198% |
| Gain YTD | 0.000 | 0.000 | - |
| P/E Ratio | 22.60 | N/A | - |
| Revenue | 10.8B | 4.19M | 257,695% |
| Total Cash | 328M | 3.13M | 10,486% |
| Total Debt | 6.59B | 11.4M | 57,807% |
MXGBF | SLLFF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 47 | 29 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 29 Undervalued | 98 Overvalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 71 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 79 | 96 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 43 | 93 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 58 | 100 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 45 | 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.
MXGBF's Valuation (29) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for SLLFF (98). This means that MXGBF’s stock grew significantly faster than SLLFF’s over the last 12 months.
MXGBF's Profit vs Risk Rating (71) in the null industry is in the same range as SLLFF (100). This means that MXGBF’s stock grew similarly to SLLFF’s over the last 12 months.
MXGBF's SMR Rating (79) in the null industry is in the same range as SLLFF (96). This means that MXGBF’s stock grew similarly to SLLFF’s over the last 12 months.
MXGBF's Price Growth Rating (43) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for SLLFF (93). This means that MXGBF’s stock grew somewhat faster than SLLFF’s over the last 12 months.
MXGBF's P/E Growth Rating (58) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for SLLFF (100). This means that MXGBF’s stock grew somewhat faster than SLLFF’s over the last 12 months.
| MXGBF | SLLFF | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 13% | N/A |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | N/A | 4 days ago 6% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 26% | 4 days ago 12% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 20% | 4 days ago 15% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 22% | 4 days ago 29% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Declines ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 8% | 4 days ago 29% |
MXGBF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that MXGBF and TAP have been poorly correlated (+25% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that MXGBF and TAP's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To MXGBF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MXGBF | 100% | N/A | ||
| TAP - MXGBF | 25% Poorly correlated | -5.67% | ||
| REMYY - MXGBF | 9% Poorly correlated | -5.79% | ||
| REMYF - MXGBF | 1% Poorly correlated | -2.71% | ||
| SRSG - MXGBF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| STBFF - MXGBF | -0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
SLLFF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that SLLFF and SRSG have been poorly correlated (+11% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that SLLFF and SRSG's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To SLLFF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SLLFF | 100% | N/A | ||
| SRSG - SLLFF | 11% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| REMYF - SLLFF | 5% Poorly correlated | -2.71% | ||
| SOOBF - SLLFF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| HYTNF - SLLFF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| MXGBF - SLLFF | -1% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||