NFSCF vs SLAMF
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 NFSCF is a Hold and SLAMF 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).
NFSCF’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whileSLAMF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).
- NFSCF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
- SLAMF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
Price Growth
NFSCF (@Financial Conglomerates) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while SLAMF (@Financial Conglomerates) price change was +0.61% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Financial Conglomerates industry was +1.40%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +0.89%, and the average quarterly price growth was +5.63%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Financial Conglomerates (+1.40% weekly)Financial conglomerates usually encompass a wide range of financial services including (not necessarily limited to) investment banking, insurance, capital raising/underwriting, trading of financial securities, investment advisory services, wealth management of high net-worth individuals, and retail banking. Think Citigroup, American Express Company, ING Group.
| NFSCF | SLAMF | NFSCF / SLAMF | |
| Capitalization | 204M | 439M | 46% |
| EBITDA | -800.04K | -3.36M | 24% |
| Gain YTD | 0.000 | 1.322 | - |
| P/E Ratio | 24.07 | 65.00 | 37% |
| Revenue | 0 | 0 | - |
| Total Cash | 43.2K | 3.34K | 1,294% |
| Total Debt | 196K | 10.2M | 2% |
| RSI ODDS (%) |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) |
| Momentum ODDS (%) |
| MACD ODDS (%) |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) |
| Advances ODDS (%) |
| Declines ODDS (%) |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) |
| Aroon ODDS (%) |
NFSCF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, NFSCF has been loosely correlated with LBEV. These tickers have moved in lockstep 44% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if NFSCF jumps, then LBEV could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To NFSCF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NFSCF | 100% | N/A | ||
| LBEV - NFSCF | 44% Loosely correlated | N/A | ||
| DIST - NFSCF | 30% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| SOC - NFSCF | 29% Poorly correlated | -3.06% | ||
| HUDAU - NFSCF | 27% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| HUDA - NFSCF | 27% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
SLAMF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, SLAMF has been loosely correlated with RCFAF. These tickers have moved in lockstep 34% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if SLAMF jumps, then RCFAF could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To SLAMF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SLAMF | 100% | +0.61% | ||
| RCFAF - SLAMF | 34% Loosely correlated | N/A | ||
| LGYV - SLAMF | 27% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| NFSCF - SLAMF | 26% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| PEGR - SLAMF | 25% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| BBOE - SLAMF | 23% Poorly correlated | -20.52% | ||
More | ||||