BLK
Price
$1088.11
Change
-$0.85 (-0.08%)
Updated
Dec 26 closing price
Capitalization
168.82B
25 days until earnings call
Intraday BUY SELL Signals
FNCSF
Price
$7.23
Change
+$0.21 (+2.99%)
Updated
Dec 26 closing price
Capitalization
351.46M
Intraday BUY SELL Signals
Interact to see
Advertisement

BLK vs FNCSF

Header iconBLK vs FNCSF Comparison
Open Charts BLK vs FNCSFBanner chart's image
Blackrock
Price$1088.11
Change-$0.85 (-0.08%)
Volume$230.34K
Capitalization168.82B
North American Financial 15 Split
Price$7.23
Change+$0.21 (+2.99%)
Volume$6.6K
Capitalization351.46M
BLK vs FNCSF Comparison Chart in %
BLK
Daily Signal:
Gain/Loss:
FNCSF
Daily Signal:
Gain/Loss:
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
BLK vs. FNCSF commentary
Dec 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 BLK is a Buy and FNCSF is a Buy.

Interact to see
Advertisement
COMPARISON
Comparison
Dec 27, 2025
Stock price -- (BLK: $1088.11 vs. FNCSF: $7.23)
Brand notoriety: BLK and FNCSF are both not notable
Both companies represent the Investment Managers industry
Current volume relative to the 65-day Moving Average: BLK: 37% vs. FNCSF: 178%
Market capitalization -- BLK: $168.82B vs. FNCSF: $351.46M
BLK [@Investment Managers] is valued at $168.82B. FNCSF’s [@Investment Managers] market capitalization is $351.46M. The market cap for tickers in the [@Investment Managers] industry ranges from $168.82B to $0. The average market capitalization across the [@Investment Managers] industry is $7.54B.

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).

BLK’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whileFNCSF’s FA Score has 3 green FA rating(s).

  • BLK’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
  • FNCSF’s FA Score: 3 green, 2 red.
According to our system of comparison, FNCSF is a better buy in the long-term than BLK.

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.

BLK’s TA Score shows that 8 TA indicator(s) are bullish while FNCSF’s TA Score has 3 bullish TA indicator(s).

  • BLK’s TA Score: 8 bullish, 2 bearish.
  • FNCSF’s TA Score: 3 bullish, 3 bearish.
According to our system of comparison, BLK is a better buy in the short-term than FNCSF.

Price Growth

BLK (@Investment Managers) experienced а +2.64% price change this week, while FNCSF (@Investment Managers) price change was +18.52% for the same time period.

The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Investment Managers industry was +0.91%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +1.38%, and the average quarterly price growth was +12.03%.

Reported Earning Dates

BLK is expected to report earnings on Jan 21, 2026.

Industries' Descriptions

@Investment Managers (+0.91% 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
BLK($169B) has a higher market cap than FNCSF($351M). BLK has higher P/E ratio than FNCSF: BLK (28.01) vs FNCSF (2.99). FNCSF YTD gains are higher at: 44.600 vs. BLK (7.797). BLK has higher revenues than FNCSF: BLK (22.9B) vs FNCSF (200M).
BLKFNCSFBLK / FNCSF
Capitalization169B351M48,148%
EBITDA9.71BN/A-
Gain YTD7.79744.60017%
P/E Ratio28.012.99936%
Revenue22.9B200M11,450%
Total Cash12.6BN/A-
Total Debt15BN/A-
FUNDAMENTALS RATINGS
BLK vs FNCSF: Fundamental Ratings
BLK
FNCSF
OUTLOOK RATING
1..100
6141
VALUATION
overvalued / fair valued / undervalued
1..100
84
Overvalued
1
Undervalued
PROFIT vs RISK RATING
1..100
3950
SMR RATING
1..100
6118
PRICE GROWTH RATING
1..100
5339
P/E GROWTH RATING
1..100
4023
SEASONALITY SCORE
1..100
5035

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.

FNCSF's Valuation (1) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for BLK (84) in the Investment Managers industry. This means that FNCSF’s stock grew significantly faster than BLK’s over the last 12 months.

BLK's Profit vs Risk Rating (39) in the Investment Managers industry is in the same range as FNCSF (50) in the null industry. This means that BLK’s stock grew similarly to FNCSF’s over the last 12 months.

FNCSF's SMR Rating (18) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for BLK (61) in the Investment Managers industry. This means that FNCSF’s stock grew somewhat faster than BLK’s over the last 12 months.

FNCSF's Price Growth Rating (39) in the null industry is in the same range as BLK (53) in the Investment Managers industry. This means that FNCSF’s stock grew similarly to BLK’s over the last 12 months.

FNCSF's P/E Growth Rating (23) in the null industry is in the same range as BLK (40) in the Investment Managers industry. This means that FNCSF’s stock grew similarly to BLK’s over the last 12 months.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
BLKFNCSF
RSI
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
52%
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
64%
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
62%
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
64%
Momentum
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
56%
N/A
MACD
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
45%
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
59%
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
64%
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
55%
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
60%
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
48%
Advances
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 17 days ago
60%
Bullish Trend 30 days ago
45%
Declines
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 9 days ago
58%
N/A
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 5 days ago
61%
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
62%
Aroon
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
52%
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
44%
View a ticker or compare two or three
Interact to see
Advertisement
BLK
Daily Signal:
Gain/Loss:
FNCSF
Daily Signal:
Gain/Loss:
Interesting Tickers
1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
1 Day
ETFs / NAMEPrice $Chg $Chg %
BABX38.971.08
+2.84%
GraniteShares 2x Long BABA Daily ETF
EFNL47.700.14
+0.29%
iShares MSCI Finland ETF
FEBU28.000.07
+0.26%
AllianzIM U.S. Equity Buffer15 UncFebETF
IUSV103.65-0.01
-0.01%
iShares Core S&P US Value ETF
AUSF46.96-0.01
-0.02%
Global X Adaptive US Factor ETF

BLK and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, BLK has been closely correlated with STT. These tickers have moved in lockstep 80% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is a high statistical probability that if BLK jumps, then STT could also see price increases.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To BLK
1D Price
Change %
BLK100%
-0.08%
STT - BLK
80%
Closely correlated
+0.05%
CG - BLK
76%
Closely correlated
+0.16%
AMG - BLK
75%
Closely correlated
+1.70%
BN - BLK
74%
Closely correlated
+0.28%
BX - BLK
74%
Closely correlated
-0.10%
More

FNCSF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that FNCSF and BLK have been poorly correlated (+30% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that FNCSF and BLK's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To FNCSF
1D Price
Change %
FNCSF100%
+2.99%
BLK - FNCSF
30%
Poorly correlated
-0.08%
PFG - FNCSF
30%
Poorly correlated
-0.23%
BCSF - FNCSF
28%
Poorly correlated
+0.80%
WNDLF - FNCSF
28%
Poorly correlated
N/A
SEIC - FNCSF
27%
Poorly correlated
-0.61%
More