ACCFF
Price
$2.42
Change
-$0.17 (-6.59%)
Updated
May 23 closing price
Capitalization
42.17M
FOA
Price
$23.59
Change
-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Updated
Jul 3 closing price
Capitalization
68.72M
Interact to see
Advertisement

ACCFF vs FOA

Header iconACCFF vs FOA Comparison
Open Charts ACCFF vs FOABanner chart's image
Accord Financial
Price$2.42
Change-$0.17 (-6.59%)
Volume$1.25K
Capitalization42.17M
Finance of America Companies
Price$23.59
Change-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Volume$48.19K
Capitalization68.72M
ACCFF vs FOA Comparison Chart in %
Loading...
ACCFF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
FOA
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
ACCFF vs. FOA commentary
Jul 07, 2025

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 ACCFF is a Hold and FOA is a Buy.

Interact to see
Advertisement
COMPARISON
Comparison
Jul 07, 2025
Stock price -- (ACCFF: $2.41 vs. FOA: $23.59)
Brand notoriety: ACCFF and FOA are both not notable
Both companies represent the Finance/Rental/Leasing industry
Current volume relative to the 65-day Moving Average: ACCFF: 131% vs. FOA: 55%
Market capitalization -- ACCFF: $42.17M vs. FOA: $68.72M
ACCFF [@Finance/Rental/Leasing] is valued at $42.17M. FOA’s [@Finance/Rental/Leasing] market capitalization is $68.72M. The market cap for tickers in the [@Finance/Rental/Leasing] industry ranges from $573.25B to $0. The average market capitalization across the [@Finance/Rental/Leasing] industry is $13.11B.

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).

ACCFF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileFOA’s FA Score has 2 green FA rating(s).

  • ACCFF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
  • FOA’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
According to our system of comparison, FOA is a better buy in the long-term than ACCFF.

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.

ACCFF’s TA Score shows that 2 TA indicator(s) are bullish while FOA’s TA Score has 5 bullish TA indicator(s).

  • ACCFF’s TA Score: 2 bullish, 1 bearish.
  • FOA’s TA Score: 5 bullish, 3 bearish.
According to our system of comparison, FOA is a better buy in the short-term than ACCFF.

Price Growth

ACCFF (@Finance/Rental/Leasing) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while FOA (@Finance/Rental/Leasing) price change was +1.55% for the same time period.

The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Finance/Rental/Leasing industry was +2.35%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +6.14%, and the average quarterly price growth was +18.46%.

Industries' Descriptions

@Finance/Rental/Leasing (+2.35% weekly)

A leasing company (e.g. United Rentals, Inc. ) is typically the legal owner of the asset for the duration of the lease, while the lessee has operating control over the asset while also having some share of the economic risks and returns from the change in the valuation of the underlying asset. Per capita disposable income and corporate earnings or cash flow could be some of the critical metrics for this business – the higher the values of these metrics, the potentially greater ability of consumers/businesses to afford apartments/office spaces for rent. Other finance companies include credit/debit card payment processing companies (e.g. Visa Inc. and Mastercard), private label credit cards providers (e.g. Synchrony Financial) and automobile finance companies (e.g. Credit Acceptance Corporation).

SUMMARIES
Loading...
FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
FOA($68.7M) has a higher market cap than ACCFF($42.2M). ACCFF YTD gains are higher at: -10.223 vs. FOA (-16.110). ACCFF has less debt than FOA: ACCFF (370M) vs FOA (26.3B). FOA has higher revenues than ACCFF: FOA (177M) vs ACCFF (42.7M).
ACCFFFOAACCFF / FOA
Capitalization42.2M68.7M61%
EBITDAN/AN/A-
Gain YTD-10.223-16.11063%
P/E Ratio161.29N/A-
Revenue42.7M177M24%
Total Cash2.38MN/A-
Total Debt370M26.3B1%
FUNDAMENTALS RATINGS
ACCFF vs FOA: Fundamental Ratings
ACCFF
FOA
OUTLOOK RATING
1..100
5050
VALUATION
overvalued / fair valued / undervalued
1..100
41
Fair valued
67
Overvalued
PROFIT vs RISK RATING
1..100
10086
SMR RATING
1..100
9017
PRICE GROWTH RATING
1..100
7836
P/E GROWTH RATING
1..100
12
SEASONALITY SCORE
1..100
n/an/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.

ACCFF's Valuation (41) in the null industry is in the same range as FOA (67). This means that ACCFF’s stock grew similarly to FOA’s over the last 12 months.

FOA's Profit vs Risk Rating (86) in the null industry is in the same range as ACCFF (100). This means that FOA’s stock grew similarly to ACCFF’s over the last 12 months.

FOA's SMR Rating (17) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for ACCFF (90). This means that FOA’s stock grew significantly faster than ACCFF’s over the last 12 months.

FOA's Price Growth Rating (36) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for ACCFF (78). This means that FOA’s stock grew somewhat faster than ACCFF’s over the last 12 months.

ACCFF's P/E Growth Rating (1) in the null industry is in the same range as FOA (2). This means that ACCFF’s stock grew similarly to FOA’s over the last 12 months.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
ACCFFFOA
RSI
ODDS (%)
N/A
N/A
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
82%
Momentum
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
27%
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
72%
MACD
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
25%
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
79%
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
22%
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
68%
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
20%
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
71%
Advances
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bullish Trend 5 days ago
68%
Declines
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bearish Trend 24 days ago
81%
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bearish Trend 10 days ago
84%
Aroon
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
20%
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
70%
View a ticker or compare two or three
Interact to see
Advertisement
ACCFF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
FOA
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
Interesting Tickers
1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
1 Day
STOCK / NAMEPrice $Chg $Chg %
FTZFF0.240.02
+9.45%
FITZROY MINERALS INC.
ERLFF1.550.02
+1.47%
Entree Resources Ltd.
BRRE7.40N/A
N/A
Blue Ridge Real Estate Co.
EQGPF73.96N/A
N/A
EQB Inc
ISUZF13.07N/A
N/A
Isuzu Motors, Ltd.

ACCFF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that ACCFF and LPRO have been poorly correlated (+11% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that ACCFF and LPRO's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To ACCFF
1D Price
Change %
ACCFF100%
N/A
LPRO - ACCFF
11%
Poorly correlated
+0.90%
FOA - ACCFF
4%
Poorly correlated
N/A
ALTG - ACCFF
4%
Poorly correlated
+4.67%
FINV - ACCFF
2%
Poorly correlated
+3.47%
UWMC - ACCFF
1%
Poorly correlated
-0.70%
More