Advertisement
TCLAF vs WIPKF
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 TCLAF is a Hold and WIPKF 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).
TCLAF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileWIPKF’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- TCLAF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- WIPKF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
Price Growth
TCLAF (@Containers/Packaging) experienced а +0.18% price change this week, while WIPKF (@Containers/Packaging) price change was -0.58% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Containers/Packaging industry was +1.83%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +3.68%, and the average quarterly price growth was -1.40%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Containers/Packaging (+1.83% weekly)The containers/packing sector includes companies that manufacture containers (like plastic and aluminum food containers, glass bottles, metal cans, cardboard, storage and waste bags, giftwraps etc.) and provide packing services. Food-and-beverage and household products are major markets for this business. Several companies in this industry cater to international markets in addition to serving domestic customers. Consumer spending habits could potentially affect this industry’s performance. Some products, that use oil-based materials as inputs, are likely to see their costs of production get impacted (to some extent) by energy price movements. The ever-expanding e-commerce market has only supercharged the amount/frequency of goods shipped domestically and across borders, thereby creating ample potential opportunities for containers and packaging businesses. Ball Corporation, International Paper Company, Amcor Plc and Packaging Corporation of America are some of the largest U.S. companies in this industry.
| TCLAF | WIPKF | TCLAF / WIPKF | |
| Capitalization | 857M | 1.99B | 43% |
| EBITDA | 433M | 239M | 181% |
| Gain YTD | 30.872 | -2.994 | -1,031% |
| P/E Ratio | 9.83 | 14.35 | 69% |
| Revenue | 3B | 1.19B | 253% |
| Total Cash | 25.2M | 455M | 6% |
| Total Debt | 1.19B | 12.5M | 9,512% |
TCLAF | WIPKF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | 94 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 22 Undervalued | 88 Overvalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 58 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 70 | 64 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 40 | 49 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 86 | 59 | |
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.
TCLAF's Valuation (22) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for WIPKF (88). This means that TCLAF’s stock grew significantly faster than WIPKF’s over the last 12 months.
TCLAF's Profit vs Risk Rating (58) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for WIPKF (100). This means that TCLAF’s stock grew somewhat faster than WIPKF’s over the last 12 months.
WIPKF's SMR Rating (64) in the null industry is in the same range as TCLAF (70). This means that WIPKF’s stock grew similarly to TCLAF’s over the last 12 months.
TCLAF's Price Growth Rating (40) in the null industry is in the same range as WIPKF (49). This means that TCLAF’s stock grew similarly to WIPKF’s over the last 12 months.
WIPKF's P/E Growth Rating (59) in the null industry is in the same range as TCLAF (86). This means that WIPKF’s stock grew similarly to TCLAF’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 (%) |
Advertisement
TCLAF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that TCLAF and SEE have been poorly correlated (+22% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that TCLAF and SEE's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To TCLAF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TCLAF | 100% | -0.14% | ||
| SEE - TCLAF | 22% Poorly correlated | -0.38% | ||
| OI - TCLAF | 21% Poorly correlated | -2.90% | ||
| HOYFF - TCLAF | 20% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| SUMXF - TCLAF | 12% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| RPKIF - TCLAF | 8% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
WIPKF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that WIPKF and SUMXF have been poorly correlated (+22% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that WIPKF and SUMXF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To WIPKF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WIPKF | 100% | -0.58% | ||
| SUMXF - WIPKF | 22% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| RPKIF - WIPKF | 4% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| TCLAF - WIPKF | 3% Poorly correlated | -0.14% | ||
| SW - WIPKF | 0% Poorly correlated | +0.89% | ||
| MNHFF - WIPKF | -0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||