Advertisement
AMBBY vs AMBFF
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 AMBBY is a Hold and AMBFF 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).
AMBBY’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whileAMBFF’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- AMBBY’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
- AMBFF’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.
AMBBY’s TA Score shows that 4 TA indicator(s) are bullish while AMBFF’s TA Score has 2 bullish TA indicator(s).
- AMBBY’s TA Score: 4 bullish, 2 bearish.
- AMBFF’s TA Score: 2 bullish, 4 bearish.
Price Growth
AMBBY (@Medical/Nursing Services) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while AMBFF (@Medical/Nursing Services) price change was +2.18% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Medical/Nursing Services industry was -0.17%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -1.20%, and the average quarterly price growth was +13.25%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Medical/Nursing Services (-0.17% weekly)The medical/nursing services includes companies that provide medical-related services such as ambulance services, dialysis centers, respiratory therapy, blood testing and rehabilitation services. DaVita Inc., Chemed Corporation and Guardant Health, Inc. are examples of companies in this industry.
| AMBBY | AMBFF | AMBBY / AMBFF | |
| Capitalization | 3.69B | 3.69B | 100% |
| EBITDA | 1.16B | 1.16B | 100% |
| Gain YTD | 4.455 | -30.553 | -15% |
| P/E Ratio | 37.78 | 38.39 | 98% |
| Revenue | 6.04B | 6.04B | 100% |
| Total Cash | 866M | 866M | 100% |
| Total Debt | 547M | 547M | 100% |
AMBBY | AMBFF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 97 Overvalued | 69 Overvalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 69 | 69 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 61 | 62 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 98 | 99 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | n/a | 29 |
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.
AMBFF's Valuation (69) in the null industry is in the same range as AMBBY (97). This means that AMBFF’s stock grew similarly to AMBBY’s over the last 12 months.
AMBFF's Profit vs Risk Rating (100) in the null industry is in the same range as AMBBY (100). This means that AMBFF’s stock grew similarly to AMBBY’s over the last 12 months.
AMBFF's SMR Rating (69) in the null industry is in the same range as AMBBY (69). This means that AMBFF’s stock grew similarly to AMBBY’s over the last 12 months.
AMBBY's Price Growth Rating (61) in the null industry is in the same range as AMBFF (62). This means that AMBBY’s stock grew similarly to AMBFF’s over the last 12 months.
AMBBY's P/E Growth Rating (98) in the null industry is in the same range as AMBFF (99). This means that AMBBY’s stock grew similarly to AMBFF’s over the last 12 months.
| AMBBY | AMBFF | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 59% | 3 days ago 43% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 76% | 3 days ago 42% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 47% | 3 days ago 27% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 5 days ago 46% | 3 days ago 25% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 53% | 3 days ago 29% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 54% | 3 days ago 27% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Declines ODDS (%) | 20 days ago 73% | N/A |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | N/A | 3 days ago 50% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 58% | 3 days ago 58% |
Advertisement
AMBBY and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that AMBBY and AZTA have been poorly correlated (+24% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that AMBBY and AZTA's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To AMBBY | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AMBBY | 100% | N/A | ||
| AZTA - AMBBY | 24% Poorly correlated | +0.70% | ||
| CLPBY - AMBBY | 23% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| GNNDY - AMBBY | 23% Poorly correlated | +1.47% | ||
| ALGN - AMBBY | 23% Poorly correlated | +0.34% | ||
| VTAK - AMBBY | 21% Poorly correlated | -5.62% | ||
More | ||||
AMBFF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, AMBFF has been loosely correlated with ICCM. These tickers have moved in lockstep 45% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if AMBFF jumps, then ICCM could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To AMBFF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AMBFF | 100% | +2.18% | ||
| ICCM - AMBFF | 45% Loosely correlated | -0.31% | ||
| AHICF - AMBFF | 32% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| AMBBY - AMBFF | 3% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| NNOX - AMBFF | 1% Poorly correlated | -4.03% | ||
| ANSLF - AMBFF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||