BKEAF
Price
$1.42
Change
-$0.13 (-8.44%)
Updated
Jul 22 closing price
Capitalization
4.08B
BKIMF
Price
$10.96
Change
+$0.18 (+1.67%)
Updated
Mar 12 closing price
Capitalization
5.82B
Interact to see
Advertisement

BKEAF vs BKIMF

Header iconBKEAF vs BKIMF Comparison
Open Charts BKEAF vs BKIMFBanner chart's image
Bank of East Asia
Price$1.42
Change-$0.13 (-8.44%)
Volume$965
Capitalization4.08B
Bankinter, S.A
Price$10.96
Change+$0.18 (+1.67%)
Volume$2.66K
Capitalization5.82B
BKEAF vs BKIMF Comparison Chart in %
Loading...
BKEAF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
BKEAF vs. BKIMF commentary
Jul 27, 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 BKEAF is a Hold and BKIMF is a Buy.

Interact to see
Advertisement
COMPARISON
Comparison
Jul 27, 2025
Stock price -- (BKEAF: $1.41 vs. BKIMF: $10.96)
Brand notoriety: BKEAF and BKIMF are both not notable
Both companies represent the Regional Banks industry
Current volume relative to the 65-day Moving Average: BKEAF: 152% vs. BKIMF: 100%
Market capitalization -- BKEAF: $4.08B vs. BKIMF: $5.82B
BKEAF [@Regional Banks] is valued at $4.08B. BKIMF’s [@Regional Banks] market capitalization is $5.82B. The market cap for tickers in the [@Regional Banks] industry ranges from $133.96B to $0. The average market capitalization across the [@Regional Banks] industry is $6.03B.

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).

BKEAF’s FA Score shows that 2 FA rating(s) are green whileBKIMF’s FA Score has 3 green FA rating(s).

  • BKEAF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
  • BKIMF’s FA Score: 3 green, 2 red.
According to our system of comparison, both BKEAF and BKIMF are a good buy in the long-term.

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.

BKEAF’s TA Score shows that 2 TA indicator(s) are bullish.

  • BKEAF’s TA Score: 2 bullish, 6 bearish.

Price Growth

BKEAF (@Regional Banks) experienced а -9.58% price change this week, while BKIMF (@Regional Banks) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.

The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Regional Banks industry was +0.51%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +4.61%, and the average quarterly price growth was +10.19%.

Industries' Descriptions

@Regional Banks (+0.51% weekly)

Regional banks have a smaller reach than major banks, and cater mostly to one region of a country, such as a state or within a group of states. They offer services often similar – albeit with some limitations/smaller scale – compared to major banks. Taking deposits, making loans, mortgages, leases, credit cards , fund management, insurance and investment banking. SunTrust Banks, State Street Corp., M&T Bank Corp. are some examples of U.S. regional banks.

SUMMARIES
Loading...
FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
BKIMF($5.82B) has a higher market cap than BKEAF($4.08B). BKEAF has higher P/E ratio than BKIMF: BKEAF (8.18) vs BKIMF (6.51). BKIMF YTD gains are higher at: 37.000 vs. BKEAF (11.417). BKIMF has less debt than BKEAF: BKIMF (7.66B) vs BKEAF (13.2B).
BKEAFBKIMFBKEAF / BKIMF
Capitalization4.08B5.82B70%
EBITDAN/AN/A-
Gain YTD11.41737.00031%
P/E Ratio8.186.51126%
RevenueN/A2.65B-
Total Cash1.02BN/A-
Total Debt13.2B7.66B172%
FUNDAMENTALS RATINGS
BKEAF vs BKIMF: Fundamental Ratings
BKEAF
BKIMF
OUTLOOK RATING
1..100
5050
VALUATION
overvalued / fair valued / undervalued
1..100
7
Undervalued
79
Overvalued
PROFIT vs RISK RATING
1..100
1005
SMR RATING
1..100
49
PRICE GROWTH RATING
1..100
4748
P/E GROWTH RATING
1..100
4527
SEASONALITY SCORE
1..100
n/a50

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.

BKEAF's Valuation (7) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for BKIMF (79). This means that BKEAF’s stock grew significantly faster than BKIMF’s over the last 12 months.

BKIMF's Profit vs Risk Rating (5) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for BKEAF (100). This means that BKIMF’s stock grew significantly faster than BKEAF’s over the last 12 months.

BKEAF's SMR Rating (4) in the null industry is in the same range as BKIMF (9). This means that BKEAF’s stock grew similarly to BKIMF’s over the last 12 months.

BKEAF's Price Growth Rating (47) in the null industry is in the same range as BKIMF (48). This means that BKEAF’s stock grew similarly to BKIMF’s over the last 12 months.

BKIMF's P/E Growth Rating (27) in the null industry is in the same range as BKEAF (45). This means that BKIMF’s stock grew similarly to BKEAF’s over the last 12 months.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
BKEAFBKIMF
RSI
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
43%
N/A
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
36%
N/A
Momentum
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
36%
N/A
MACD
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
49%
N/A
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
41%
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
44%
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
36%
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
45%
Advances
ODDS (%)
N/A
N/A
Declines
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 6 days ago
33%
N/A
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
40%
N/A
Aroon
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
40%
N/A
View a ticker or compare two or three
Interact to see
Advertisement
BKEAF
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 %
CCIF5.690.10
+1.79%
Carlyle Credit Income Fund
UCON24.830.03
+0.12%
First Trust Smith Unconstrained Pl BdETF
RAYC15.950.01
+0.09%
Rayliant Quantamental China Equity ETF
LSGR42.59N/A
N/A
Natixis Loomis Sayles Focused Growth ETF
ETHA27.58-0.80
-2.82%
iShares Ethereum Trust ETF

BKEAF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, BKEAF has been loosely correlated with AFBI. These tickers have moved in lockstep 41% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if BKEAF jumps, then AFBI could also see price increases.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To BKEAF
1D Price
Change %
BKEAF100%
N/A
AFBI - BKEAF
41%
Loosely correlated
N/A
PSZKY - BKEAF
25%
Poorly correlated
-6.09%
BAOB - BKEAF
25%
Poorly correlated
-0.71%
BKIMF - BKEAF
0%
Poorly correlated
N/A
BKAHF - BKEAF
-0%
Poorly correlated
N/A
More

BKIMF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, BKIMF has been loosely correlated with GWBK. These tickers have moved in lockstep 37% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if BKIMF jumps, then GWBK could also see price increases.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To BKIMF
1D Price
Change %
BKIMF100%
N/A
GWBK - BKIMF
37%
Loosely correlated
N/A
MSBB - BKIMF
23%
Poorly correlated
N/A
FNWD - BKIMF
23%
Poorly correlated
+2.37%
LYBC - BKIMF
23%
Poorly correlated
N/A
NCXS - BKIMF
21%
Poorly correlated
N/A
More