BRDCF
Price
$44.27
Change
+$1.21 (+2.81%)
Updated
Jul 2 closing price
Capitalization
28.65B
CTTAF
Price
$89.96
Change
+$0.26 (+0.29%)
Updated
Jul 3 closing price
Capitalization
16.01B
Interact to see
Advertisement

BRDCF vs CTTAF

Header iconBRDCF vs CTTAF Comparison
Open Charts BRDCF vs CTTAFBanner chart's image
Bridgestone
Price$44.27
Change+$1.21 (+2.81%)
Volume$240
Capitalization28.65B
Continental AG
Price$89.96
Change+$0.26 (+0.29%)
Volume$65
Capitalization16.01B
BRDCF vs CTTAF Comparison Chart in %
Loading...
BRDCF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
CTTAF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
BRDCF vs. CTTAF commentary
Jul 08, 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 BRDCF is a Hold and CTTAF is a Hold.

Interact to see
Advertisement
COMPARISON
Comparison
Jul 08, 2025
Stock price -- (BRDCF: $44.27 vs. CTTAF: $89.96)
Brand notoriety: BRDCF and CTTAF are both not notable
Both companies represent the Auto Parts: OEM industry
Current volume relative to the 65-day Moving Average: BRDCF: 13% vs. CTTAF: 17%
Market capitalization -- BRDCF: $28.65B vs. CTTAF: $16.01B
BRDCF [@Auto Parts: OEM] is valued at $28.65B. CTTAF’s [@Auto Parts: OEM] market capitalization is $16.01B. The market cap for tickers in the [@Auto Parts: OEM] industry ranges from $52.56B to $0. The average market capitalization across the [@Auto Parts: OEM] industry is $5.73B.

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).

BRDCF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileCTTAF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).

  • BRDCF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
  • CTTAF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
According to our system of comparison, BRDCF is a better buy in the long-term than CTTAF.

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.

BRDCF’s TA Score shows that 4 TA indicator(s) are bullish while CTTAF’s TA Score has 6 bullish TA indicator(s).

  • BRDCF’s TA Score: 4 bullish, 4 bearish.
  • CTTAF’s TA Score: 6 bullish, 2 bearish.
According to our system of comparison, CTTAF is a better buy in the short-term than BRDCF.

Price Growth

BRDCF (@Auto Parts: OEM) experienced а +2.81% price change this week, while CTTAF (@Auto Parts: OEM) price change was +9.81% for the same time period.

The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Auto Parts: OEM industry was +2.79%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +6.30%, and the average quarterly price growth was +12.15%.

Industries' Descriptions

@Auto Parts: OEM (+2.79% weekly)

OEM or Original Equipment Manufacturer of auto parts refers to the original producer of a vehicles components, and so OEM car parts are usually identical to the parts used in producing the vehicle in the first place. OEM parts tend to fit the specifications of a particular model, and their compatibility is often guaranteed by the automaker itself. OEM parts could be more expensive to buy (compared to other vendors’ products) when a consumer goes for replacement. However, increased competition from aftermarket parts/third-party vendors could, in some cases, keep EOM prices in check. The industry might progress further in adopting newer technologies like 3D printing to boost supply chain performance and quality. Aptiv PLC, Magna International Inc. and BorgWarner Inc. are major OEMs for autos.

SUMMARIES
Loading...
FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
BRDCF($28.6B) has a higher market cap than CTTAF($16B). CTTAF has higher P/E ratio than BRDCF: CTTAF (68.03) vs BRDCF (12.56). CTTAF YTD gains are higher at: 31.758 vs. BRDCF (23.006). BRDCF has higher annual earnings (EBITDA): 793B vs. CTTAF (4.19B). BRDCF has more cash in the bank: 526B vs. CTTAF (2.38B). CTTAF has less debt than BRDCF: CTTAF (8.01B) vs BRDCF (802B). BRDCF has higher revenues than CTTAF: BRDCF (4.26T) vs CTTAF (40.4B).
BRDCFCTTAFBRDCF / CTTAF
Capitalization28.6B16B179%
EBITDA793B4.19B18,944%
Gain YTD23.00631.75872%
P/E Ratio12.5668.0318%
Revenue4.26T40.4B10,552%
Total Cash526B2.38B22,101%
Total Debt802B8.01B10,010%
FUNDAMENTALS RATINGS
BRDCF vs CTTAF: Fundamental Ratings
BRDCF
CTTAF
OUTLOOK RATING
1..100
5050
VALUATION
overvalued / fair valued / undervalued
1..100
21
Undervalued
16
Undervalued
PROFIT vs RISK RATING
1..100
41100
SMR RATING
1..100
5872
PRICE GROWTH RATING
1..100
5040
P/E GROWTH RATING
1..100
3569
SEASONALITY SCORE
1..100
n/an/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.

CTTAF's Valuation (16) in the null industry is in the same range as BRDCF (21). This means that CTTAF’s stock grew similarly to BRDCF’s over the last 12 months.

BRDCF's Profit vs Risk Rating (41) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CTTAF (100). This means that BRDCF’s stock grew somewhat faster than CTTAF’s over the last 12 months.

BRDCF's SMR Rating (58) in the null industry is in the same range as CTTAF (72). This means that BRDCF’s stock grew similarly to CTTAF’s over the last 12 months.

CTTAF's Price Growth Rating (40) in the null industry is in the same range as BRDCF (50). This means that CTTAF’s stock grew similarly to BRDCF’s over the last 12 months.

BRDCF's P/E Growth Rating (35) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CTTAF (69). This means that BRDCF’s stock grew somewhat faster than CTTAF’s over the last 12 months.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
BRDCFCTTAF
RSI
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 5 days ago
45%
N/A
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 5 days ago
38%
Bearish Trend 5 days ago
68%
Momentum
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 5 days ago
50%
Bullish Trend 5 days ago
71%
MACD
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 5 days ago
46%
Bullish Trend 5 days ago
55%
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 5 days ago
41%
Bullish Trend 5 days ago
70%
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 5 days ago
38%
Bullish Trend 5 days ago
74%
Advances
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bullish Trend 5 days ago
67%
Declines
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bearish Trend 12 days ago
65%
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 5 days ago
62%
Bullish Trend 5 days ago
73%
Aroon
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 5 days ago
37%
Bullish Trend 5 days ago
72%
View a ticker or compare two or three
Interact to see
Advertisement
BRDCF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
CTTAF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
Interesting Tickers
1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
1 Day
STOCK / NAMEPrice $Chg $Chg %
SLRC16.360.26
+1.61%
SLR Investment Corp
IT400.284.84
+1.22%
Gartner
PAGP19.540.03
+0.15%
Plains GP Holdings LP
VYGR3.20N/A
N/A
Voyager Therapeutics
CHEK0.74-0.01
-1.62%
Check-Cap Ltd

BRDCF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that BRDCF and BRDCY have been poorly correlated (+23% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that BRDCF and BRDCY's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To BRDCF
1D Price
Change %
BRDCF100%
N/A
BRDCY - BRDCF
23%
Poorly correlated
+0.48%
WLMTF - BRDCF
21%
Poorly correlated
N/A
CTTAY - BRDCF
13%
Poorly correlated
+0.54%
CTTAF - BRDCF
10%
Poorly correlated
+0.30%
CMMCF - BRDCF
7%
Poorly correlated
N/A
More

CTTAF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, CTTAF has been loosely correlated with CTTAY. These tickers have moved in lockstep 61% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if CTTAF jumps, then CTTAY could also see price increases.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To CTTAF
1D Price
Change %
CTTAF100%
+0.30%
CTTAY - CTTAF
61%
Loosely correlated
+0.54%
VLEEY - CTTAF
41%
Loosely correlated
-3.42%
PASTF - CTTAF
30%
Poorly correlated
N/A
DNZOF - CTTAF
29%
Poorly correlated
-4.79%
MGDDY - CTTAF
25%
Poorly correlated
-0.64%
More