WHGRF vs WLMIF
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 WHGRF is a Hold and WLMIF 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).
WHGRF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileWLMIF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).
- WHGRF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- WLMIF’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.
WHGRF’s TA Score shows that 4 TA indicator(s) are bullish while WLMIF’s TA Score has 4 bullish TA indicator(s).
- WHGRF’s TA Score: 4 bullish, 3 bearish.
- WLMIF’s TA Score: 4 bullish, 4 bearish.
Price Growth
WHGRF (@Food: Specialty/Candy) experienced а -0.28% price change this week, while WLMIF (@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 -1.68%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +1.65%, and the average quarterly price growth was +17.95%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Food: Specialty/Candy (-1.68% 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.
| WHGRF | WLMIF | WHGRF / WLMIF | |
| Capitalization | 6.94B | 19.5B | 36% |
| EBITDA | 2.51B | 5.01B | 50% |
| Gain YTD | 24.508 | -23.396 | -105% |
| P/E Ratio | 4.87 | 8.61 | 57% |
| Revenue | 27.3B | 72.4B | 38% |
| Total Cash | 1.79B | 3.74B | 48% |
| Total Debt | 4.5B | 32.3B | 14% |
WHGRF | WLMIF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 97 | 86 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 9 Undervalued | 6 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 64 | 98 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 44 | 72 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 90 | 86 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | n/a | 24 |
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.
WLMIF's Valuation (6) in the null industry is in the same range as WHGRF (9). This means that WLMIF’s stock grew similarly to WHGRF’s over the last 12 months.
WLMIF's Profit vs Risk Rating (100) in the null industry is in the same range as WHGRF (100). This means that WLMIF’s stock grew similarly to WHGRF’s over the last 12 months.
WHGRF's SMR Rating (64) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for WLMIF (98). This means that WHGRF’s stock grew somewhat faster than WLMIF’s over the last 12 months.
WHGRF's Price Growth Rating (44) in the null industry is in the same range as WLMIF (72). This means that WHGRF’s stock grew similarly to WLMIF’s over the last 12 months.
WLMIF's P/E Growth Rating (86) in the null industry is in the same range as WHGRF (90). This means that WLMIF’s stock grew similarly to WHGRF’s over the last 12 months.
| WHGRF | WLMIF | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 65% | 2 days ago 50% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 62% | 2 days ago 64% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 61% | 2 days ago 57% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 65% | 2 days ago 42% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 64% | 2 days ago 52% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 48% | 2 days ago 56% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | N/A | 8 days ago 35% |
| Declines ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | N/A | 2 days ago 37% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 38% | 2 days ago 63% |
WHGRF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that WHGRF and UELKY have been poorly correlated (+15% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that WHGRF and UELKY's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To WHGRF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WHGRF | 100% | -3.36% | ||
| UELKY - WHGRF | 15% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| TBLMF - WHGRF | 7% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| WHGLY - WHGRF | 7% Poorly correlated | -1.65% | ||
| UVRBF - WHGRF | 6% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| WLMIF - WHGRF | 6% Poorly correlated | -11.93% | ||
More | ||||
WLMIF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that WLMIF and YMZBY have been poorly correlated (+25% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that WLMIF and YMZBY's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To WLMIF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WLMIF | 100% | -11.93% | ||
| YMZBY - WLMIF | 25% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| ASBFY - WLMIF | 21% Poorly correlated | -2.01% | ||
| SAPIF - WLMIF | 20% Poorly correlated | -1.02% | ||
| WLMIY - WLMIF | 19% Poorly correlated | +0.36% | ||
| ATPC - WLMIF | 18% Poorly correlated | -6.40% | ||
More | ||||