Advertisement
BLVDF vs CIIHF
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 BLVDF is a Hold and CIIHF 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).
BLVDF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileCIIHF’s FA Score has 2 green FA rating(s).
- BLVDF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- CIIHF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
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.
BLVDF’s TA Score shows that 1 TA indicator(s) are bullish while CIIHF’s TA Score has 4 bullish TA indicator(s).
- BLVDF’s TA Score: 1 bullish, 2 bearish.
- CIIHF’s TA Score: 4 bullish, 0 bearish.
Price Growth
BLVDF (@Investment Banks/Brokers) experienced а -13.50% price change this week, while CIIHF (@Investment Banks/Brokers) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Investment Banks/Brokers industry was +1.77%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +4.70%, and the average quarterly price growth was +13.75%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Investment Banks/Brokers (+1.77% weekly)These banks specialize in underwriting (helping companies with debt financing or equity issuances), IPOs, facilitating mergers and other corporate reorganizations and acting as a broker or financial advisor for institutions. They might also trade securities on their own accounts. Investment banks potentially thrive on expanding its network of clients, since that could help them increase profits. Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and CME Group Inc are some of the largest investment banking companies.
| BLVDF | CIIHF | BLVDF / CIIHF | |
| Capitalization | 2.83M | 59B | 0% |
| EBITDA | -432.68K | N/A | - |
| Gain YTD | -13.500 | 0.000 | - |
| P/E Ratio | 35.90 | 13.35 | 269% |
| Revenue | 0 | 77.1B | - |
| Total Cash | N/A | N/A | - |
| Total Debt | N/A | 251B | - |
BLVDF | CIIHF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 98 | 40 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 81 Overvalued | 23 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 48 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 97 | 12 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 92 | 51 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 17 | 66 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | n/a | 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.
CIIHF's Valuation (23) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for BLVDF (81). This means that CIIHF’s stock grew somewhat faster than BLVDF’s over the last 12 months.
CIIHF's Profit vs Risk Rating (48) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for BLVDF (100). This means that CIIHF’s stock grew somewhat faster than BLVDF’s over the last 12 months.
CIIHF's SMR Rating (12) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for BLVDF (97). This means that CIIHF’s stock grew significantly faster than BLVDF’s over the last 12 months.
CIIHF's Price Growth Rating (51) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for BLVDF (92). This means that CIIHF’s stock grew somewhat faster than BLVDF’s over the last 12 months.
BLVDF's P/E Growth Rating (17) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CIIHF (66). This means that BLVDF’s stock grew somewhat faster than CIIHF’s over the last 12 months.
| BLVDF | CIIHF | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | N/A | 2 days ago 50% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 69% | 4 days ago 40% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 36% | 2 days ago 35% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 68% | 2 days ago 30% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 51% | 2 days ago 29% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Declines ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 55% | 2 days ago 30% |
Advertisement
BLVDF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that BLVDF and MS have been poorly correlated (+24% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that BLVDF and MS's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To BLVDF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BLVDF | 100% | N/A | ||
| MS - BLVDF | 24% Poorly correlated | -1.08% | ||
| HEXEY - BLVDF | 21% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| JEF - BLVDF | 21% Poorly correlated | +0.60% | ||
| BBKCF - BLVDF | 4% Poorly correlated | +10.33% | ||
| HGBL - BLVDF | 4% Poorly correlated | -3.45% | ||
More | ||||
CIIHF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that CIIHF and HAFG have been poorly correlated (+32% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CIIHF and HAFG's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CIIHF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CIIHF | 100% | N/A | ||
| HAFG - CIIHF | 32% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CCORF - CIIHF | 14% Poorly correlated | -1.29% | ||
| BBKCF - CIIHF | 3% Poorly correlated | +10.33% | ||
| CFNCF - CIIHF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| BLVDF - CIIHF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||