BAM
Price
$53.48
Change
+$0.35 (+0.66%)
Updated
Dec 24 closing price
Capitalization
86.06B
Intraday BUY SELL Signals
SHNWF
Price
$5.50
Change
-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Updated
Dec 17 closing price
Capitalization
8.38B
Intraday BUY SELL Signals
Interact to see
Advertisement

BAM vs SHNWF

Header iconBAM vs SHNWF Comparison
Open Charts BAM vs SHNWFBanner chart's image
Brookfield Asset Management
Price$53.48
Change+$0.35 (+0.66%)
Volume$820.63K
Capitalization86.06B
Schroders
Price$5.50
Change-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Volume$3K
Capitalization8.38B
BAM vs SHNWF Comparison Chart in %
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
BAM vs. SHNWF commentary
Dec 26, 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 BAM is a StrongBuy and SHNWF is a Hold.

Interact to see
Advertisement
COMPARISON
Comparison
Dec 26, 2025
Stock price -- (BAM: $53.48 vs. SHNWF: $5.50)
Brand notoriety: BAM and SHNWF are both not notable
Both companies represent the Investment Managers industry
Current volume relative to the 65-day Moving Average: BAM: 33% vs. SHNWF: 309%
Market capitalization -- BAM: $86.06B vs. SHNWF: $8.38B
BAM [@Investment Managers] is valued at $86.06B. SHNWF’s [@Investment Managers] market capitalization is $8.38B. The market cap for tickers in the [@Investment Managers] industry ranges from $168.95B to $0. The average market capitalization across the [@Investment Managers] industry is $7.55B.

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).

BAM’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileSHNWF’s FA Score has 2 green FA rating(s).

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

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.

BAM’s TA Score shows that 5 TA indicator(s) are bullish while SHNWF’s TA Score has 5 bullish TA indicator(s).

  • BAM’s TA Score: 5 bullish, 6 bearish.
  • SHNWF’s TA Score: 5 bullish, 2 bearish.
According to our system of comparison, SHNWF is a better buy in the short-term than BAM.

Price Growth

BAM (@Investment Managers) experienced а +3.44% price change this week, while SHNWF (@Investment Managers) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.

The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Investment Managers industry was +0.89%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +2.61%, and the average quarterly price growth was +11.50%.

Industries' Descriptions

@Investment Managers (+0.89% weekly)

Investment Managers manage financial assets and other investments of clients. Management includes designing a short- or long-term strategy for buying/holding and selling of portfolio holdings. It can also include tax services and other aspects of financial planning as well. While it is perceived that the industry is faced with growing competition from robo-advisors/digital platforms and passive/ index-tracking funds, many investors still find value in actively managed in-person services that investment management companies often emphasize on. At the same time, many wealth managers are also incorporating digital initiatives/low cost options in addition to their in-person customized services. Their main sources of revenues are fees as a percentage of assets under management, in addition to a certain portion of clients’ gains from asset appreciation. BlackRock, Inc., Blackstone Group Inc and Brookfield Asset Management are some of the major investment management companies.

SUMMARIES
Loading...
FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
BAM($86.1B) has a higher market cap than SHNWF($8.39B). BAM has higher P/E ratio than SHNWF: BAM (34.50) vs SHNWF (18.25). SHNWF YTD gains are higher at: 30.952 vs. BAM (0.978). BAM has higher annual earnings (EBITDA): 1.07B vs. SHNWF (655M). SHNWF has more cash in the bank: 7.06B vs. BAM (1.06B). SHNWF has less debt than BAM: SHNWF (588M) vs BAM (2.8B). SHNWF has higher revenues than BAM: SHNWF (3.02B) vs BAM (913M).
BAMSHNWFBAM / SHNWF
Capitalization86.1B8.39B1,027%
EBITDA1.07B655M163%
Gain YTD0.97830.9523%
P/E Ratio34.5018.25189%
Revenue913M3.02B30%
Total Cash1.06B7.06B15%
Total Debt2.8B588M477%
FUNDAMENTALS RATINGS
BAM: Fundamental Ratings
BAM
OUTLOOK RATING
1..100
79
VALUATION
overvalued / fair valued / undervalued
1..100
20
Undervalued
PROFIT vs RISK RATING
1..100
68
SMR RATING
1..100
51
PRICE GROWTH RATING
1..100
58
P/E GROWTH RATING
1..100
86
SEASONALITY SCORE
1..100
50

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.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
BAMSHNWF
RSI
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
65%
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
64%
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
73%
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
62%
Momentum
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
59%
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
66%
MACD
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
69%
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
50%
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
67%
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
45%
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
61%
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
43%
Advances
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 17 days ago
63%
N/A
Declines
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 10 days ago
65%
N/A
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
64%
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
80%
Aroon
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
57%
N/A
View a ticker or compare two or three
Interact to see
Advertisement
BAM
Daily Signal:
Gain/Loss:
SHNWF
Daily Signal:
Gain/Loss:
Interesting Tickers
1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
1 Day
ETFs / NAMEPrice $Chg $Chg %
METU32.970.27
+0.83%
Direxion Daily META Bull 2X ETF
NULC48.390.15
+0.31%
Nuveen ESG Large-Cap ETF
GEM41.390.09
+0.22%
Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta® EMkts Eq ETF
RZC25.800.03
+0.12%
Reinsurance Group of America
TBT34.16-0.59
-1.70%
ProShares UltraShort 20+ Year Treasury

BAM and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, BAM has been closely correlated with BN. These tickers have moved in lockstep 86% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is a high statistical probability that if BAM jumps, then BN could also see price increases.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To BAM
1D Price
Change %
BAM100%
+0.66%
BN - BAM
86%
Closely correlated
+0.73%
KKR - BAM
76%
Closely correlated
-0.17%
CG - BAM
76%
Closely correlated
+0.11%
BX - BAM
76%
Closely correlated
+0.26%
APO - BAM
75%
Closely correlated
+0.32%
More

SHNWF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that SHNWF and STT have been poorly correlated (+22% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that SHNWF and STT's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To SHNWF
1D Price
Change %
SHNWF100%
N/A
STT - SHNWF
22%
Poorly correlated
+1.16%
FNCSF - SHNWF
21%
Poorly correlated
N/A
BAM - SHNWF
12%
Poorly correlated
+0.66%
BBUC - SHNWF
11%
Poorly correlated
+1.67%
GAMI - SHNWF
6%
Poorly correlated
+0.82%
More