BTVCF vs CCHBF
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 BTVCF is a Hold and CCHBF 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).
BTVCF’s FA Score shows that 2 FA rating(s) are green whileCCHBF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).
- BTVCF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
- CCHBF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
Price Growth
BTVCF (@Beverages: Non-Alcoholic) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while CCHBF (@Beverages: Non-Alcoholic) price change was +5.12% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Beverages: Non-Alcoholic industry was -0.25%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -4.39%, and the average quarterly price growth was -3.83%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Beverages: Non-Alcoholic (-0.25% weekly)Non-alcoholic drinks include traces of alcohol or low alcohol content or without alcohol or alcohol removed. Functional Beverages, Carbonated Soft Drinks (CSDs), Sports Drinks, Fruit Beverages, and Bottled Water are some common types of non-alcoholic beverages. The largest segment in this market is soft drinks (think Pepsi and Coke). Many established companies in this space have also been stepping up production of low to zero-calorie varieties in recent years, to cater to a rising number of health-conscious consumers. Coca-Cola Company, Pepsico Inc, Keurig Dr Pepper Inc. and Monster Beverage Corporation are some major non-alcoholic beverage makers.
| BTVCF | CCHBF | BTVCF / CCHBF | |
| Capitalization | 2.85B | 10.8B | 26% |
| EBITDA | 276M | 1.11B | 25% |
| Gain YTD | 47.222 | 27.139 | 174% |
| P/E Ratio | 14.60 | 25.84 | 56% |
| Revenue | 1.69B | 9.2B | 18% |
| Total Cash | 48M | 1.78B | 3% |
| Total Debt | 732M | 3.42B | 21% |
BTVCF | CCHBF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 45 | 47 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 41 Fair valued | 30 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 50 | 77 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 32 | 89 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 42 | 48 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 27 | 35 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 50 | 65 |
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.
CCHBF's Valuation (30) in the null industry is in the same range as BTVCF (41). This means that CCHBF’s stock grew similarly to BTVCF’s over the last 12 months.
BTVCF's Profit vs Risk Rating (50) in the null industry is in the same range as CCHBF (77). This means that BTVCF’s stock grew similarly to CCHBF’s over the last 12 months.
BTVCF's SMR Rating (32) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CCHBF (89). This means that BTVCF’s stock grew somewhat faster than CCHBF’s over the last 12 months.
BTVCF's Price Growth Rating (42) in the null industry is in the same range as CCHBF (48). This means that BTVCF’s stock grew similarly to CCHBF’s over the last 12 months.
BTVCF's P/E Growth Rating (27) in the null industry is in the same range as CCHBF (35). This means that BTVCF’s stock grew similarly to CCHBF’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 (%) |
BTVCF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that BTVCF and BTVCY have been poorly correlated (+11% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that BTVCF and BTVCY's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To BTVCF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BTVCF | 100% | N/A | ||
| BTVCY - BTVCF | 11% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CCHBF - BTVCF | 8% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CCHGY - BTVCF | 4% Poorly correlated | -1.85% | ||
| CHFHY - BTVCF | -0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CCOJF - BTVCF | -0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
CCHBF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that CCHBF and KDP have been poorly correlated (+8% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CCHBF and KDP's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CCHBF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CCHBF | 100% | N/A | ||
| KDP - CCHBF | 8% Poorly correlated | -0.54% | ||
| BTVCF - CCHBF | 8% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CCHGY - CCHBF | 5% Poorly correlated | -1.85% | ||
| CELH - CCHBF | 4% Poorly correlated | -0.41% | ||
| CCOJY - CCHBF | 2% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||