BICEF vs DQWS
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 BICEF is a Hold and DQWS 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).
BICEF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileDQWS’s FA Score has 2 green FA rating(s).
- BICEF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- DQWS’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
Price Growth
BICEF (@Household/Personal Care) experienced а +4.24% price change this week, while DQWS (@Household/Personal Care) price change was +57.07% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Household/Personal Care industry was -0.34%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +2.13%, and the average quarterly price growth was +4.96%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Household/Personal Care (-0.34% weekly)Household/Personal Care companies sell products for home cleaning and/or personal hygiene and grooming purposes. Products of this industry include detergents, shampoos, soaps, cosmetics, fabric conditioners and infant care fragrances. Procter & Gamble, Unilever, Estee Lauder and Colgate-Palmolive are some of the biggest names in the business. A lot of the products become a necessary part of people’s daily routine, and therefore the industry is relatively less vulnerable to macroeconomic downturns. At the same time, product quality, consumer safety, and ease of use are extremely critical factors for a company to survive competition and earn recognition in this industry.
| BICEF | DQWS | BICEF / DQWS | |
| Capitalization | 2.62B | 20.7M | 12,633% |
| EBITDA | 432M | 25.4K | 1,700,787% |
| Gain YTD | -4.283 | 143.333 | -3% |
| P/E Ratio | 11.35 | 100.00 | 11% |
| Revenue | 2.04B | 1.67M | 122,496% |
| Total Cash | 320M | 155K | 206,452% |
| Total Debt | 151M | 84.4K | 178,910% |
BICEF | DQWS | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 33 | 39 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 13 Undervalued | 94 Overvalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 62 | 11 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 54 | 34 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 82 | 3 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 65 | 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.
BICEF's Valuation (13) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for DQWS (94). This means that BICEF’s stock grew significantly faster than DQWS’s over the last 12 months.
BICEF's Profit vs Risk Rating (100) in the null industry is in the same range as DQWS (100). This means that BICEF’s stock grew similarly to DQWS’s over the last 12 months.
DQWS's SMR Rating (11) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for BICEF (62). This means that DQWS’s stock grew somewhat faster than BICEF’s over the last 12 months.
DQWS's Price Growth Rating (34) in the null industry is in the same range as BICEF (54). This means that DQWS’s stock grew similarly to BICEF’s over the last 12 months.
DQWS's P/E Growth Rating (3) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for BICEF (82). This means that DQWS’s stock grew significantly faster than BICEF’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 (%) |
BICEF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that BICEF and KAOCF have been poorly correlated (+22% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that BICEF and KAOCF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To BICEF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BICEF | 100% | N/A | ||
| KAOCF - BICEF | 22% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| BDRFF - BICEF | 6% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| ETTYF - BICEF | 1% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CAWW - BICEF | -2% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| BICEY - BICEF | -2% Poorly correlated | -1.88% | ||
More | ||||
DQWS and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that DQWS and ETTYF have been poorly correlated (+4% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that DQWS and ETTYF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To DQWS | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DQWS | 100% | N/A | ||
| ETTYF - DQWS | 4% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| HENKY - DQWS | 2% Poorly correlated | +0.65% | ||
| BICEY - DQWS | 0% Poorly correlated | -1.88% | ||
| HEGIY - DQWS | -2% Poorly correlated | -1.93% | ||
| BICEF - DQWS | -3% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||