RBGPF vs UNCHF
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 RBGPF is a Hold and UNCHF 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).
RBGPF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileUNCHF’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- RBGPF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- UNCHF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
Price Growth
RBGPF (@Household/Personal Care) experienced а +0.71% price change this week, while UNCHF (@Household/Personal Care) price change was -11.67% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Household/Personal Care industry was -0.27%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +2.25%, and the average quarterly price growth was +4.95%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Household/Personal Care (-0.27% weekly)Household/Personal Care companies sell products for home cleaning and/or personal hygiene and grooming purposes. Products of this industry include detergents, shampoos, soaps, cosmetics, fabric conditioners and infant care fragrances. Procter & Gamble, Unilever, Estee Lauder and Colgate-Palmolive are some of the biggest names in the business. A lot of the products become a necessary part of people’s daily routine, and therefore the industry is relatively less vulnerable to macroeconomic downturns. At the same time, product quality, consumer safety, and ease of use are extremely critical factors for a company to survive competition and earn recognition in this industry.
| RBGPF | UNCHF | RBGPF / UNCHF | |
| Capitalization | 53.8B | 22.1B | 243% |
| EBITDA | 3.9B | 160B | 2% |
| Gain YTD | -10.798 | -27.828 | 39% |
| P/E Ratio | 18.48 | 46.30 | 40% |
| Revenue | 15B | 914B | 2% |
| Total Cash | 1.03B | 312B | 0% |
| Total Debt | 8.64B | 29.1B | 30% |
RBGPF | UNCHF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 18 Undervalued | 55 Fair valued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 95 | 59 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 50 | 84 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 43 | 75 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 50 | 50 |
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.
RBGPF's Valuation (18) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for UNCHF (55). This means that RBGPF’s stock grew somewhat faster than UNCHF’s over the last 12 months.
RBGPF's Profit vs Risk Rating (100) in the null industry is in the same range as UNCHF (100). This means that RBGPF’s stock grew similarly to UNCHF’s over the last 12 months.
UNCHF's SMR Rating (59) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for RBGPF (95). This means that UNCHF’s stock grew somewhat faster than RBGPF’s over the last 12 months.
RBGPF's Price Growth Rating (50) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for UNCHF (84). This means that RBGPF’s stock grew somewhat faster than UNCHF’s over the last 12 months.
RBGPF's P/E Growth Rating (43) in the null industry is in the same range as UNCHF (75). This means that RBGPF’s stock grew similarly to UNCHF’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 (%) |
RBGPF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, RBGPF has been closely correlated with RBGLY. These tickers have moved in lockstep 69% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is a high statistical probability that if RBGPF jumps, then RBGLY could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To RBGPF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RBGPF | 100% | N/A | ||
| RBGLY - RBGPF | 69% Closely correlated | +0.33% | ||
| UNLRF - RBGPF | 24% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| UNCHF - RBGPF | 20% Poorly correlated | +7.72% | ||
| SPCO - RBGPF | 19% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| UNICY - RBGPF | 10% Poorly correlated | -1.19% | ||
More | ||||
UNCHF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, UNCHF has been loosely correlated with UNICY. These tickers have moved in lockstep 41% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if UNCHF jumps, then UNICY could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To UNCHF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| UNCHF | 100% | +7.72% | ||
| UNICY - UNCHF | 41% Loosely correlated | -1.19% | ||
| UNLYF - UNCHF | 22% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| RBGPF - UNCHF | 20% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| SSDOY - UNCHF | 16% Poorly correlated | -1.61% | ||
| SPCO - UNCHF | 7% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||