CBLDF
Price
$8.00
Change
-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Updated
Sep 28 closing price
UCAR
Price
$7.00
Change
+$0.57 (+8.86%)
Updated
Nov 14 closing price
Ad is loading...

CBLDF vs UCAR

Header iconCBLDF vs UCAR Comparison
Open Charts CBLDF vs UCARBanner chart's image
Cashbuild
Price$8.00
Change-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Volume$100
CapitalizationN/A
U Power
Price$7.00
Change+$0.57 (+8.86%)
Volume$94.6K
CapitalizationN/A
CBLDF vs UCAR Comparison Chart
Loading...
UCAR
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if shorted
Show more...
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
CBLDF vs. UCAR commentary
Nov 15, 2024

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 UCAR is a Hold.

COMPARISON
Comparison
Nov 15, 2024
Stock price -- (CBLDF: $8.00 vs. UCAR: $7.00)
Brand notoriety: CBLDF and UCAR are both not notable
Both companies represent the Specialty Stores industry
Current volume relative to the 65-day Moving Average: CBLDF: 100% vs. UCAR: 506%
Market capitalization -- CBLDF: $205.79M vs. UCAR: $3.89M
CBLDF [@Specialty Stores] is valued at $205.79M. UCAR’s [@Specialty Stores] market capitalization is $3.89M. The market cap for tickers in the [@Specialty Stores] industry ranges from $380.15B to $0. The average market capitalization across the [@Specialty Stores] industry is $8.67B.

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 whileUCAR’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).

  • CBLDF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
  • UCAR’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
According to our system of comparison, UCAR is a better buy in the long-term than CBLDF.

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.

UCAR’s TA Score shows that 3 TA indicator(s) are bullish.

  • UCAR’s TA Score: 3 bullish, 5 bearish.

Price Growth

CBLDF (@Specialty Stores) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while UCAR (@Specialty Stores) price change was -12.39% 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.

SUMMARIES
Loading...
FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
CBLDF($206M) has a higher market cap than UCAR($3.89M). CBLDF YTD gains are higher at: 0.000 vs. UCAR (-61.853).
CBLDFUCARCBLDF / UCAR
Capitalization206M3.89M5,290%
EBITDA1.12BN/A-
Gain YTD0.000-61.853-
P/E RatioN/AN/A-
Revenue10.9BN/A-
Total Cash1.72BN/A-
Total Debt1.61BN/A-
TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
UCAR
RSI
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
90%
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
82%
Momentum
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
90%
MACD
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
90%
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
90%
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
82%
Advances
ODDS (%)
N/A
Declines
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
90%
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
53%
Aroon
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
90%
View a ticker or compare two or three
Ad is loading...
UCAR
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if shorted
Show more...
Interesting Tickers
1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
1 Day
STOCK / NAMEPrice $Chg $Chg %
GME27.370.91
+3.44%
GameStop Corp
AAPL228.223.10
+1.38%
Apple
SPY593.35-3.84
-0.64%
SPDR® S&P 500® ETF Trust
BTC.X87250.430000-3333.734400
-3.68%
Bitcoin cryptocurrency
TSLA311.18-19.06
-5.77%
Tesla

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.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To CBLDF
1D Price
Change %
CBLDF100%
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

UCAR and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that UCAR and MNSO have been poorly correlated (+24% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that UCAR and MNSO's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To UCAR
1D Price
Change %
UCAR100%
+8.86%
MNSO - UCAR
24%
Poorly correlated
-6.35%
EVGO - UCAR
21%
Poorly correlated
-2.88%
GRWG - UCAR
21%
Poorly correlated
-4.81%
BQ - UCAR
20%
Poorly correlated
-3.60%
NVVE - UCAR
13%
Poorly correlated
N/A
More