SCGPY vs SCTBF
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 SCGPY is a Hold and SCTBF 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).
SCGPY’s FA Score shows that 2 FA rating(s) are green whileSCTBF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).
- SCGPY’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
- SCTBF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
Price Growth
SCGPY (@Miscellaneous Commercial Services) experienced а +3.94% price change this week, while SCTBF (@Miscellaneous Commercial Services) price change was +12.72% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Miscellaneous Commercial Services industry was +1.29%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +7.66%, and the average quarterly price growth was +0.84%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Miscellaneous Commercial Services (+1.29% weekly)The sector produces general business services, and are not classified elsewhere. For example, FleetCor Technologies provides fuel cards and workforce payment products and services; Copart, Inc. provides online vehicle auction and remarketing services across various nations; Equifax Inc. collects and aggregates credit information on consumers and businesses worldwide, along with selling credit monitoring and fraud-prevention services. Many of the companies in this category have multi-billion market capitalizations.
| SCGPY | SCTBF | SCGPY / SCTBF | |
| Capitalization | 2.2B | 4.87B | 45% |
| EBITDA | 392M | 8.65B | 5% |
| Gain YTD | 27.451 | 31.795 | 86% |
| P/E Ratio | 11.74 | 10.33 | 114% |
| Revenue | 4.53B | 152B | 3% |
| Total Cash | N/A | 5.49B | - |
| Total Debt | N/A | 50.9B | - |
SCGPY | SCTBF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 43 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 18 Undervalued | 17 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 31 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 76 | 84 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 47 | 39 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 34 | 79 | |
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.
SCTBF's Valuation (17) in the null industry is in the same range as SCGPY (18). This means that SCTBF’s stock grew similarly to SCGPY’s over the last 12 months.
SCGPY's Profit vs Risk Rating (31) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for SCTBF (100). This means that SCGPY’s stock grew significantly faster than SCTBF’s over the last 12 months.
SCGPY's SMR Rating (76) in the null industry is in the same range as SCTBF (84). This means that SCGPY’s stock grew similarly to SCTBF’s over the last 12 months.
SCTBF's Price Growth Rating (39) in the null industry is in the same range as SCGPY (47). This means that SCTBF’s stock grew similarly to SCGPY’s over the last 12 months.
SCGPY's P/E Growth Rating (34) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for SCTBF (79). This means that SCGPY’s stock grew somewhat faster than SCTBF’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 (%) |
SCGPY and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, SCGPY has been loosely correlated with SECUF. These tickers have moved in lockstep 37% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if SCGPY jumps, then SECUF could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To SCGPY | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SCGPY | 100% | +3.94% | ||
| SECUF - SCGPY | 37% Loosely correlated | -0.54% | ||
| BMBLF - SCGPY | 30% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CASS - SCGPY | 29% Poorly correlated | -1.86% | ||
| GHC - SCGPY | 27% Poorly correlated | +1.17% | ||
| BRC - SCGPY | 25% Poorly correlated | +0.43% | ||
More | ||||
SCTBF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that SCTBF and NAUH have been poorly correlated (+22% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that SCTBF and NAUH's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To SCTBF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SCTBF | 100% | N/A | ||
| NAUH - SCTBF | 22% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| EUBG - SCTBF | 22% Poorly correlated | -10.74% | ||
| SDXOF - SCTBF | 9% Poorly correlated | +3.36% | ||
| SCGPY - SCTBF | 9% Poorly correlated | +3.94% | ||
| RSKIA - SCTBF | 9% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||