AMLLF
Price
$18.10
Change
-$1.76 (-8.86%)
Updated
Jun 16 closing price
Capitalization
2.84B
CNPPF
Price
$0.70
Change
+$0.02 (+2.94%)
Updated
Jun 13 closing price
Capitalization
3.84B
Interact to see
Advertisement

AMLLF vs CNPPF

Header iconAMLLF vs CNPPF Comparison
Open Charts AMLLF vs CNPPFBanner chart's image
Aeon Mall
Price$18.10
Change-$1.76 (-8.86%)
Volume$214
Capitalization2.84B
CHINA OVERSEAS PPTY
Price$0.70
Change+$0.02 (+2.94%)
Volume$202
Capitalization3.84B
AMLLF vs CNPPF Comparison Chart in %
Loading...
AMLLF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
CNPPF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
AMLLF vs. CNPPF 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 AMLLF is a Hold and CNPPF is a Buy.

Interact to see
Advertisement
COMPARISON
Comparison
Jul 07, 2025
Stock price -- (AMLLF: $18.10 vs. CNPPF: $0.70)
Brand notoriety: AMLLF and CNPPF are both not notable
Both companies represent the Real Estate Development industry
Current volume relative to the 65-day Moving Average: AMLLF: 16% vs. CNPPF: 18%
Market capitalization -- AMLLF: $2.84B vs. CNPPF: $3.84B
AMLLF [@Real Estate Development] is valued at $2.84B. CNPPF’s [@Real Estate Development] market capitalization is $3.84B. The market cap for tickers in the [@Real Estate Development] industry ranges from $165.37B to $0. The average market capitalization across the [@Real Estate Development] industry is $5.49B.

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).

AMLLF’s FA Score shows that 2 FA rating(s) are green whileCNPPF’s FA Score has 2 green FA rating(s).

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

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.

AMLLF’s TA Score shows that 2 TA indicator(s) are bullish while CNPPF’s TA Score has 3 bullish TA indicator(s).

  • AMLLF’s TA Score: 2 bullish, 1 bearish.
  • CNPPF’s TA Score: 3 bullish, 2 bearish.
According to our system of comparison, both AMLLF and CNPPF are a good buy in the short-term.

Price Growth

AMLLF (@Real Estate Development) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while CNPPF (@Real Estate Development) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.

The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Real Estate Development industry was +31.16%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +35.10%, and the average quarterly price growth was +12.91%.

Industries' Descriptions

@Real Estate Development (+31.16% weekly)

Activities range from the renovation and re-lease of existing buildings to the purchase of raw land and the sale of developed land or parcels to others. Demand for land development business is driven by GDP growth, employment rates, interest rates, and access to/cost of capital. For individual companies in this industry, proper cost estimation and successful bidding play critical roles in their profitability. Large companies could potentially have greater access to capital, while smaller companies can specialize in a specific geographic area or market niche. CBRE Group, VICI Properties Inc and Brookfield Property Partners L.P. are some of the large companies in this industry.

SUMMARIES
Loading...
FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
CNPPF($3.84B) has a higher market cap than AMLLF($2.84B). AMLLF has higher P/E ratio than CNPPF: AMLLF (30.21) vs CNPPF (20.12). AMLLF YTD gains are higher at: 32.504 vs. CNPPF (5.358). AMLLF has higher annual earnings (EBITDA): 109B vs. CNPPF (1.48B). AMLLF has more cash in the bank: 100B vs. CNPPF (3.56B). CNPPF has less debt than AMLLF: CNPPF (567M) vs AMLLF (830B). AMLLF has higher revenues than CNPPF: AMLLF (408B) vs CNPPF (11B).
AMLLFCNPPFAMLLF / CNPPF
Capitalization2.84B3.84B74%
EBITDA109B1.48B7,345%
Gain YTD32.5045.358607%
P/E Ratio30.2120.12150%
Revenue408B11B3,709%
Total Cash100B3.56B2,811%
Total Debt830B567M146,384%
FUNDAMENTALS RATINGS
AMLLF vs CNPPF: Fundamental Ratings
AMLLF
CNPPF
OUTLOOK RATING
1..100
5050
VALUATION
overvalued / fair valued / undervalued
1..100
39
Fair valued
31
Undervalued
PROFIT vs RISK RATING
1..100
25100
SMR RATING
1..100
8324
PRICE GROWTH RATING
1..100
4453
P/E GROWTH RATING
1..100
1075
SEASONALITY SCORE
1..100
3050

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.

CNPPF's Valuation (31) in the null industry is in the same range as AMLLF (39). This means that CNPPF’s stock grew similarly to AMLLF’s over the last 12 months.

AMLLF's Profit vs Risk Rating (25) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for CNPPF (100). This means that AMLLF’s stock grew significantly faster than CNPPF’s over the last 12 months.

CNPPF's SMR Rating (24) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for AMLLF (83). This means that CNPPF’s stock grew somewhat faster than AMLLF’s over the last 12 months.

AMLLF's Price Growth Rating (44) in the null industry is in the same range as CNPPF (53). This means that AMLLF’s stock grew similarly to CNPPF’s over the last 12 months.

AMLLF's P/E Growth Rating (10) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CNPPF (75). This means that AMLLF’s stock grew somewhat faster than CNPPF’s over the last 12 months.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
AMLLFCNPPF
RSI
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bearish Trend 5 days ago
46%
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 5 days ago
13%
Bullish Trend 5 days ago
50%
Momentum
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 5 days ago
20%
Bullish Trend 5 days ago
46%
MACD
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 5 days ago
10%
Bearish Trend 5 days ago
35%
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 5 days ago
9%
Bullish Trend 5 days ago
33%
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 5 days ago
7%
Bullish Trend 5 days ago
27%
Advances
ODDS (%)
N/A
N/A
Declines
ODDS (%)
N/A
N/A
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
N/A
N/A
Aroon
ODDS (%)
N/A
N/A
View a ticker or compare two or three
Interact to see
Advertisement
AMLLF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
CNPPF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
Interesting Tickers
1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
1 Day
ETFs / NAMEPrice $Chg $Chg %
RLTY15.490.02
+0.13%
Cohen & Steers Real Estate Opportunities and Income Fund
RODM34.13N/A
+0.01%
Hartford Multifactor Dev Mkts (exUS) ETF
VCLN19.37N/A
N/A
Virtus Duff & Phelps Clean Energy ETF
NOVM31.43N/A
N/A
FT Vest U.S. Eq Max Buffr ETF – Nov
GLDI160.90-0.35
-0.22%
UBS ETRACS Gold Shares Covered Call ETN

AMLLF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, AMLLF has been loosely correlated with LNGPF. These tickers have moved in lockstep 45% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if AMLLF jumps, then LNGPF could also see price increases.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To AMLLF
1D Price
Change %
AMLLF100%
N/A
LNGPF - AMLLF
45%
Loosely correlated
N/A
CNPPF - AMLLF
31%
Poorly correlated
N/A
NEN - AMLLF
25%
Poorly correlated
N/A
TAGOF - AMLLF
23%
Poorly correlated
N/A
IFSUF - AMLLF
21%
Poorly correlated
N/A
More

CNPPF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that CNPPF and AMLLF have been poorly correlated (+31% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CNPPF and AMLLF's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To CNPPF
1D Price
Change %
CNPPF100%
N/A
AMLLF - CNPPF
31%
Poorly correlated
N/A
ALBT - CNPPF
27%
Poorly correlated
-3.94%
KOJAF - CNPPF
27%
Poorly correlated
N/A
WARFF - CNPPF
22%
Poorly correlated
N/A
CHVKF - CNPPF
6%
Poorly correlated
N/A
More