Advertisement
TBLMF vs UMEWF
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 TBLMF is a Hold and UMEWF is a Buy.
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).
TBLMF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileUMEWF’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- TBLMF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- UMEWF’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.
TBLMF’s TA Score shows that 1 TA indicator(s) are bullish while UMEWF’s TA Score has 6 bullish TA indicator(s).
- TBLMF’s TA Score: 1 bullish, 0 bearish.
- UMEWF’s TA Score: 6 bullish, 0 bearish.
Price Growth
TBLMF (@Food: Specialty/Candy) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while UMEWF (@Food: Specialty/Candy) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Food: Specialty/Candy industry was -0.57%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +0.50%, and the average quarterly price growth was +3.18%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Food: Specialty/Candy (-0.57% weekly)A specialty/candy manufacturer specializes in one or more of the following: chocolate, candies, pasta, condiments, seasonings, among other items. Hershey Company, McCormick & Company and J.M. Smucker Company are some of the major firms in this segment. Demand for this industry’s products comes from both institutions/restaurants as well as households.
| TBLMF | UMEWF | TBLMF / UMEWF | |
| Capitalization | 1.53B | 47.1M | 3,251% |
| EBITDA | 3.93B | -148.96K | -2,637,550% |
| Gain YTD | 13.493 | -32.500 | -42% |
| P/E Ratio | 9.29 | N/A | - |
| Revenue | 36.7B | 4 | 917,500,000,000% |
| Total Cash | 658M | 8.47K | 7,772,266% |
| Total Debt | 2.79B | 2.36M | 118,201% |
TBLMF | UMEWF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 43 | 43 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 29 Undervalued | 98 Overvalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 49 | 85 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 87 | 97 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 44 | 50 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 46 | 100 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 50 | 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.
TBLMF's Valuation (29) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for UMEWF (98). This means that TBLMF’s stock grew significantly faster than UMEWF’s over the last 12 months.
TBLMF's Profit vs Risk Rating (49) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for UMEWF (85). This means that TBLMF’s stock grew somewhat faster than UMEWF’s over the last 12 months.
TBLMF's SMR Rating (87) in the null industry is in the same range as UMEWF (97). This means that TBLMF’s stock grew similarly to UMEWF’s over the last 12 months.
TBLMF's Price Growth Rating (44) in the null industry is in the same range as UMEWF (50). This means that TBLMF’s stock grew similarly to UMEWF’s over the last 12 months.
TBLMF's P/E Growth Rating (46) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for UMEWF (100). This means that TBLMF’s stock grew somewhat faster than UMEWF’s over the last 12 months.
| TBLMF | UMEWF | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | N/A | 2 days ago 47% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | N/A | 2 days ago 66% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | N/A | 2 days ago 60% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | N/A | 2 days ago 63% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 47% | 2 days ago 59% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 46% | 2 days ago 58% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Declines ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 54% | N/A |
Advertisement
TBLMF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that TBLMF and INDFY have been poorly correlated (+23% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that TBLMF and INDFY's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To TBLMF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TBLMF | 100% | N/A | ||
| INDFY - TBLMF | 23% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| TOFB - TBLMF | 13% Poorly correlated | -10.28% | ||
| WHGRF - TBLMF | 7% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| UVRBF - TBLMF | 6% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| UMEWF - TBLMF | 4% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
UMEWF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that UMEWF and SOWG have been poorly correlated (+22% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that UMEWF and SOWG's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To UMEWF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| UMEWF | 100% | N/A | ||
| SOWG - UMEWF | 22% Poorly correlated | -2.60% | ||
| TATYY - UMEWF | 8% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| TOFB - UMEWF | 6% Poorly correlated | -10.28% | ||
| TBLMF - UMEWF | 4% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| WHGRF - UMEWF | 2% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||