Advertisement
AAMCF vs PYPL
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 AAMCF is a StrongBuy and PYPL 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).
AAMCF’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whilePYPL’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- AAMCF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
- PYPL’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.
PYPL’s TA Score shows that 4 TA indicator(s) are bullish.
- PYPL’s TA Score: 4 bullish, 4 bearish.
Price Growth
AAMCF (@Auto Parts: OEM) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while PYPL (@Savings Banks) price change was -24.88% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Auto Parts: OEM industry was -0.39%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +2.60%, and the average quarterly price growth was +11.44%.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Savings Banks industry was -1.57%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -5.45%, and the average quarterly price growth was +1.31%.
Reported Earning Dates
PYPL is expected to report earnings on May 05, 2026.
Industries' Descriptions
@Auto Parts: OEM (-0.39% weekly)OEM or Original Equipment Manufacturer of auto parts refers to the original producer of a vehicles components, and so OEM car parts are usually identical to the parts used in producing the vehicle in the first place. OEM parts tend to fit the specifications of a particular model, and their compatibility is often guaranteed by the automaker itself. OEM parts could be more expensive to buy (compared to other vendors’ products) when a consumer goes for replacement. However, increased competition from aftermarket parts/third-party vendors could, in some cases, keep EOM prices in check. The industry might progress further in adopting newer technologies like 3D printing to boost supply chain performance and quality. Aptiv PLC, Magna International Inc. and BorgWarner Inc. are major OEMs for autos.
@Savings Banks (-1.57% weekly)A savings bank primary function is to take deposits and paying interest on those deposits. Originating in Europe during the 18th century, these banks were generally introduced to incentivize people of all stripes to save money and park them with banks. By the 1990s, the internet ushered in online savings banks that allowed savers to deposit/transact with banks digitally, without requiring to visit a branch office. Savings banks have potentially encouraged lower-income population to save and have access to a financial institution to earn interest on their money. New York Community Bancorp, Inc, Webster Financial Corporation, Washington Federal, Inc. are examples of savings banks.
| AAMCF | PYPL | AAMCF / PYPL | |
| Capitalization | 944K | 38.4B | 0% |
| EBITDA | N/A | 7.48B | - |
| Gain YTD | 0.000 | -28.571 | - |
| P/E Ratio | 0.01 | 7.71 | 0% |
| Revenue | N/A | 32.9B | - |
| Total Cash | N/A | 10.8B | - |
| Total Debt | 11.9M | 11.3B | 0% |
AAMCF | PYPL | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 41 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 52 Fair valued | 40 Fair valued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 98 | 38 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 61 | 65 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 99 | 98 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | n/a | 90 |
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.
PYPL's Valuation (40) in the Data Processing Services industry is in the same range as AAMCF (52) in the Investment Managers industry. This means that PYPL’s stock grew similarly to AAMCF’s over the last 12 months.
PYPL's Profit vs Risk Rating (100) in the Data Processing Services industry is in the same range as AAMCF (100) in the Investment Managers industry. This means that PYPL’s stock grew similarly to AAMCF’s over the last 12 months.
PYPL's SMR Rating (38) in the Data Processing Services industry is somewhat better than the same rating for AAMCF (98) in the Investment Managers industry. This means that PYPL’s stock grew somewhat faster than AAMCF’s over the last 12 months.
AAMCF's Price Growth Rating (61) in the Investment Managers industry is in the same range as PYPL (65) in the Data Processing Services industry. This means that AAMCF’s stock grew similarly to PYPL’s over the last 12 months.
PYPL's P/E Growth Rating (98) in the Data Processing Services industry is in the same range as AAMCF (99) in the Investment Managers industry. This means that PYPL’s stock grew similarly to AAMCF’s over the last 12 months.
| AAMCF | PYPL | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | N/A | 2 days ago 69% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | N/A | 2 days ago 66% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | N/A | 2 days ago 73% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | N/A | 2 days ago 81% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 62% | 2 days ago 72% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 58% | 2 days ago 72% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | N/A | 14 days ago 64% |
| Declines ODDS (%) | N/A | 2 days ago 74% |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | N/A | 2 days ago 64% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | N/A | 2 days ago 72% |
Advertisement
AAMCF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that AAMCF and EQS have been poorly correlated (+30% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that AAMCF and EQS's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To AAMCF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AAMCF | 100% | N/A | ||
| EQS - AAMCF | 30% Poorly correlated | -1.69% | ||
| ENVA - AAMCF | 16% Poorly correlated | -7.72% | ||
| RM - AAMCF | 11% Poorly correlated | +0.29% | ||
| PYPL - AAMCF | 10% Poorly correlated | -20.31% | ||
| PRAA - AAMCF | 10% Poorly correlated | -6.84% | ||
More | ||||
PYPL and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, PYPL has been loosely correlated with SYF. These tickers have moved in lockstep 62% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if PYPL jumps, then SYF could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To PYPL | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PYPL | 100% | -20.31% | ||
| SYF - PYPL | 62% Loosely correlated | +0.52% | ||
| OMF - PYPL | 58% Loosely correlated | -1.94% | ||
| AL - PYPL | 57% Loosely correlated | +0.09% | ||
| BFH - PYPL | 57% Loosely correlated | +3.22% | ||
| COF - PYPL | 55% Loosely correlated | -0.15% | ||
More | ||||