CBLDF vs EICCF
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 CBLDF is a Hold and EICCF 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).
CBLDF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileEICCF’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- CBLDF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- EICCF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
Price Growth
CBLDF (@Specialty Stores) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while EICCF (@Specialty Stores) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Specialty Stores industry was -2.09%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -0.72%, and the average quarterly price growth was +19.14%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Specialty Stores (-2.09% weekly)The specialty stores sector includes companies dedicated to the sale of retail products focused on a single product category, such as clothing, carpet, books, or office supplies. A specialty store could face intense competition from big-box departmental chains, and therefore offering an adequate collection of the product type it specializes in is key in maintaining/growing its market.
| CBLDF | EICCF | CBLDF / EICCF | |
| Capitalization | 206M | 133M | 155% |
| EBITDA | 1.12B | -36.28M | -3,087% |
| Gain YTD | 0.000 | 7999900.000 | - |
| P/E Ratio | N/A | N/A | - |
| Revenue | 10.9B | 116M | 9,397% |
| Total Cash | 1.72B | 15.8M | 10,892% |
| Total Debt | 1.61B | 14M | 11,514% |
| RSI ODDS (%) |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) |
| Momentum ODDS (%) |
| MACD ODDS (%) |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) |
| Advances ODDS (%) |
| Declines ODDS (%) |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) |
| Aroon ODDS (%) |
CBLDF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that CBLDF and DFRYF have been poorly correlated (+21% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CBLDF and DFRYF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CBLDF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CBLDF | 100% | N/A | ||
| DFRYF - CBLDF | 21% Poorly correlated | -3.88% | ||
| SDA - CBLDF | 11% Poorly correlated | +0.32% | ||
| CTNT - CBLDF | 2% Poorly correlated | -4.86% | ||
| UCAR - CBLDF | 2% Poorly correlated | +8.86% | ||
| EICCF - CBLDF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
EICCF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, EICCF has been loosely correlated with SCCAF. These tickers have moved in lockstep 54% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if EICCF jumps, then SCCAF could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To EICCF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EICCF | 100% | N/A | ||
| SCCAF - EICCF | 54% Loosely correlated | N/A | ||
| TKLF - EICCF | 9% Poorly correlated | +17.33% | ||
| UCAR - EICCF | 7% Poorly correlated | +8.86% | ||
| NAAS - EICCF | 3% Poorly correlated | +2.17% | ||
| SDA - EICCF | 3% Poorly correlated | +0.32% | ||
More | ||||