BCUCY vs LKFLF
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 BCUCY is a Hold and LKFLF 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).
BCUCY’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileLKFLF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).
- BCUCY’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- LKFLF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
Price Growth
BCUCY (@Other Consumer Specialties) experienced а +4.82% price change this week, while LKFLF (@Other Consumer Specialties) price change was -2.41% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Other Consumer Specialties industry was +3.01%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +2.77%, and the average quarterly price growth was +3.22%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Other Consumer Specialties (+3.01% weekly)‘Other Consumer Specialties’ represents an industry that typically sells durable consumer products, but do not have a classification in another category. The products include jewelry, smoke detectors, watches, collectibles and safety products. MSA Safety (makes products which enhances the safety and health of workers and protect facility infrastructures), Matthews International (memorialization business), Fitbit (makes wireless-enabled wearable technology devices that gauge data such as the number of steps walked, heart rate, quality of sleep), and Fossil Group (makes watches and accessories) have some of the largest market caps in this group.
| BCUCY | LKFLF | BCUCY / LKFLF | |
| Capitalization | 5.76B | 1.55B | 373% |
| EBITDA | 270M | 1.83B | 15% |
| Gain YTD | 8.656 | 8.631 | 100% |
| P/E Ratio | 64.94 | 9.04 | 718% |
| Revenue | 920M | 8.86B | 10% |
| Total Cash | N/A | 3.55B | - |
| Total Debt | N/A | 1.51B | - |
BCUCY | LKFLF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 29 | 85 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 92 Overvalued | 4 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 11 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 50 | 72 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 41 | 60 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 37 | 73 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 50 | n/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.
LKFLF's Valuation (4) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for BCUCY (92). This means that LKFLF’s stock grew significantly faster than BCUCY’s over the last 12 months.
BCUCY's Profit vs Risk Rating (11) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for LKFLF (100). This means that BCUCY’s stock grew significantly faster than LKFLF’s over the last 12 months.
BCUCY's SMR Rating (50) in the null industry is in the same range as LKFLF (72). This means that BCUCY’s stock grew similarly to LKFLF’s over the last 12 months.
BCUCY's Price Growth Rating (41) in the null industry is in the same range as LKFLF (60). This means that BCUCY’s stock grew similarly to LKFLF’s over the last 12 months.
BCUCY's P/E Growth Rating (37) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for LKFLF (73). This means that BCUCY’s stock grew somewhat faster than LKFLF’s over the last 12 months.
| RSI ODDS (%) |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) |
| Momentum ODDS (%) |
| MACD ODDS (%) |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) |
| Advances ODDS (%) |
| Declines ODDS (%) |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) |
| Aroon ODDS (%) |
BCUCY and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, BCUCY has been loosely correlated with LVMHF. These tickers have moved in lockstep 46% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if BCUCY jumps, then LVMHF could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To BCUCY | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BCUCY | 100% | +1.67% | ||
| LVMHF - BCUCY | 46% Loosely correlated | -0.80% | ||
| LVMUY - BCUCY | 45% Loosely correlated | -1.45% | ||
| HESAF - BCUCY | 44% Loosely correlated | -1.06% | ||
| HESAY - BCUCY | 43% Loosely correlated | +0.53% | ||
| PPRUY - BCUCY | 43% Loosely correlated | +2.80% | ||
More | ||||
LKFLF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that LKFLF and CHDRF have been poorly correlated (+28% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that LKFLF and CHDRF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To LKFLF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LKFLF | 100% | -2.41% | ||
| CHDRF - LKFLF | 28% Poorly correlated | -0.67% | ||
| BCUCY - LKFLF | 28% Poorly correlated | +1.67% | ||
| CJEWY - LKFLF | 28% Poorly correlated | +4.05% | ||
| SWGAY - LKFLF | 27% Poorly correlated | +1.38% | ||
| SWGNF - LKFLF | 24% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||