Advertisement
SAFLY vs TCHBF
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 SAFLY is a Hold and TCHBF 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).
SAFLY’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whileTCHBF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).
- SAFLY’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
- TCHBF’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.
SAFLY’s TA Score shows that 1 TA indicator(s) are bullish while TCHBF’s TA Score has 3 bullish TA indicator(s).
- SAFLY’s TA Score: 1 bullish, 0 bearish.
- TCHBF’s TA Score: 3 bullish, 3 bearish.
Price Growth
SAFLY (@Pharmaceuticals: Other) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while TCHBF (@Pharmaceuticals: Other) price change was -1.28% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Pharmaceuticals: Other industry was -0.75%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +0.04%, and the average quarterly price growth was +13.98%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Pharmaceuticals: Other (-0.75% weekly)Pharmaceuticals (Other) comprise companies that are involved in the discovery, development or manufacturing of therapeutic and preventative medicines. They often collaborate with or acquire other pharmaceutical/healthcare firms. Examples of companies in this segment include Bausch Health Companies Inc., Icon Plc and Perrigo Company Plc.
| SAFLY | TCHBF | SAFLY / TCHBF | |
| Capitalization | 765M | 2.29B | 33% |
| EBITDA | 107M | 140M | 76% |
| Gain YTD | 52.018 | -10.259 | -507% |
| P/E Ratio | 13.04 | 30.23 | 43% |
| Revenue | 999M | 907M | 110% |
| Total Cash | 72.6M | 397M | 18% |
| Total Debt | 115M | 322M | 36% |
SAFLY | TCHBF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 37 | 89 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 65 Fair valued | 21 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 44 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 100 | 100 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 41 | 64 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 100 | 49 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | n/a | 75 |
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.
TCHBF's Valuation (21) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for SAFLY (65). This means that TCHBF’s stock grew somewhat faster than SAFLY’s over the last 12 months.
SAFLY's Profit vs Risk Rating (44) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for TCHBF (100). This means that SAFLY’s stock grew somewhat faster than TCHBF’s over the last 12 months.
SAFLY's SMR Rating (100) in the null industry is in the same range as TCHBF (100). This means that SAFLY’s stock grew similarly to TCHBF’s over the last 12 months.
SAFLY's Price Growth Rating (41) in the null industry is in the same range as TCHBF (64). This means that SAFLY’s stock grew similarly to TCHBF’s over the last 12 months.
TCHBF's P/E Growth Rating (49) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for SAFLY (100). This means that TCHBF’s stock grew somewhat faster than SAFLY’s over the last 12 months.
| SAFLY | TCHBF | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | N/A | 2 days ago 62% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | N/A | 2 days ago 44% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | N/A | 2 days ago 44% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | N/A | 2 days ago 42% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 13% | 2 days ago 51% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 13% | 2 days ago 48% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Declines ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | N/A | 2 days ago 21% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 44% | 2 days ago 51% |
Advertisement
SAFLY and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, SAFLY has been loosely correlated with BIOQ. These tickers have moved in lockstep 34% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if SAFLY jumps, then BIOQ could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To SAFLY | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SAFLY | 100% | N/A | ||
| BIOQ - SAFLY | 34% Loosely correlated | N/A | ||
| CNVVF - SAFLY | 32% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| TCHBF - SAFLY | 29% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| LZAGY - SAFLY | 28% Poorly correlated | +2.25% | ||
| CERS - SAFLY | 25% Poorly correlated | -0.63% | ||
More | ||||
TCHBF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that TCHBF and SNWV have been poorly correlated (+31% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that TCHBF and SNWV's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To TCHBF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TCHBF | 100% | N/A | ||
| SNWV - TCHBF | 31% Poorly correlated | +5.11% | ||
| SAFLY - TCHBF | 31% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| LZAGY - TCHBF | 27% Poorly correlated | +2.25% | ||
| FDMDF - TCHBF | 25% Poorly correlated | -18.39% | ||
| LZAGF - TCHBF | 24% Poorly correlated | +7.95% | ||
More | ||||