CBUMY
Price
$25.71
Change
+$1.20 (+4.89%)
Updated
Jul 2 closing price
Capitalization
5.3B
HCMLF
Price
$74.68
Change
+$1.53 (+2.09%)
Updated
Jul 3 closing price
Capitalization
39.08B
Interact to see
Advertisement

CBUMY vs HCMLF

Header iconCBUMY vs HCMLF Comparison
Open Charts CBUMY vs HCMLFBanner chart's image
China National Buildings Material
Price$25.71
Change+$1.20 (+4.89%)
Volume$227
Capitalization5.3B
HOLCIM
Price$74.68
Change+$1.53 (+2.09%)
Volume$14.19K
Capitalization39.08B
CBUMY vs HCMLF Comparison Chart in %
Loading...
CBUMY
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
HCMLF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
CBUMY vs. HCMLF commentary
Jul 07, 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 CBUMY is a Hold and HCMLF is a Hold.

Interact to see
Advertisement
COMPARISON
Comparison
Jul 07, 2025
Stock price -- (CBUMY: $25.72 vs. HCMLF: $74.68)
Brand notoriety: CBUMY and HCMLF are both not notable
Both companies represent the Construction Materials industry
Current volume relative to the 65-day Moving Average: CBUMY: 59% vs. HCMLF: 95%
Market capitalization -- CBUMY: $5.3B vs. HCMLF: $39.08B
CBUMY [@Construction Materials] is valued at $5.3B. HCMLF’s [@Construction Materials] market capitalization is $39.08B. The market cap for tickers in the [@Construction Materials] industry ranges from $59.37B to $0. The average market capitalization across the [@Construction Materials] industry is $8.92B.

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).

CBUMY’s FA Score shows that 2 FA rating(s) are green whileHCMLF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).

  • CBUMY’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
  • HCMLF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
According to our system of comparison, both CBUMY and HCMLF are a good buy in the long-term.

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.

CBUMY’s TA Score shows that 5 TA indicator(s) are bullish while HCMLF’s TA Score has 5 bullish TA indicator(s).

  • CBUMY’s TA Score: 5 bullish, 3 bearish.
  • HCMLF’s TA Score: 5 bullish, 2 bearish.
According to our system of comparison, HCMLF is a better buy in the short-term than CBUMY.

Price Growth

CBUMY (@Construction Materials) experienced а +7.93% price change this week, while HCMLF (@Construction Materials) price change was +3.46% for the same time period.

The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Construction Materials industry was +2.75%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +4.00%, and the average quarterly price growth was +12.20%.

Industries' Descriptions

@Construction Materials (+2.75% weekly)

Many naturally occurring substances, such as clay, rocks, sand, and wood, even twigs and leaves have been used in construction material. Many man-made products are also in use. Vulcan Materials Co., Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. and Owens Corning Inc. are examples of construction material companies in the U.S. Performance of companies that extract or produce construction materials could at times depend on demand for residential and commercial buildings/real estate, and therefore in some cases could feel impacted by economic cycles.

SUMMARIES
Loading...
FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
HCMLF($39.1B) has a higher market cap than CBUMY($5.3B). HCMLF has higher P/E ratio than CBUMY: HCMLF (10.44) vs CBUMY (4.58). HCMLF YTD gains are higher at: 48.197 vs. CBUMY (18.583). CBUMY has higher annual earnings (EBITDA): 39.8B vs. HCMLF (7.78B). CBUMY has higher revenues than HCMLF: CBUMY (230B) vs HCMLF (27.6B).
CBUMYHCMLFCBUMY / HCMLF
Capitalization5.3B39.1B14%
EBITDA39.8B7.78B512%
Gain YTD18.58348.19739%
P/E Ratio4.5810.4444%
Revenue230B27.6B833%
Total CashN/A3.65B-
Total DebtN/A14.9B-
FUNDAMENTALS RATINGS
CBUMY vs HCMLF: Fundamental Ratings
CBUMY
HCMLF
OUTLOOK RATING
1..100
5050
VALUATION
overvalued / fair valued / undervalued
1..100
6
Undervalued
6
Undervalued
PROFIT vs RISK RATING
1..100
10040
SMR RATING
1..100
10098
PRICE GROWTH RATING
1..100
4337
P/E GROWTH RATING
1..100
880
SEASONALITY SCORE
1..100
5050

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.

CBUMY's Valuation (6) in the null industry is in the same range as HCMLF (6). This means that CBUMY’s stock grew similarly to HCMLF’s over the last 12 months.

HCMLF's Profit vs Risk Rating (40) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CBUMY (100). This means that HCMLF’s stock grew somewhat faster than CBUMY’s over the last 12 months.

HCMLF's SMR Rating (98) in the null industry is in the same range as CBUMY (100). This means that HCMLF’s stock grew similarly to CBUMY’s over the last 12 months.

HCMLF's Price Growth Rating (37) in the null industry is in the same range as CBUMY (43). This means that HCMLF’s stock grew similarly to CBUMY’s over the last 12 months.

CBUMY's P/E Growth Rating (8) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for HCMLF (80). This means that CBUMY’s stock grew significantly faster than HCMLF’s over the last 12 months.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
CBUMYHCMLF
RSI
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 5 days ago
67%
Bearish Trend 5 days ago
52%
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 5 days ago
63%
Bullish Trend 5 days ago
58%
Momentum
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 5 days ago
65%
Bullish Trend 5 days ago
62%
MACD
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 5 days ago
59%
Bullish Trend 5 days ago
65%
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 5 days ago
49%
Bullish Trend 5 days ago
58%
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 5 days ago
51%
Bullish Trend 5 days ago
58%
Advances
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bullish Trend 8 days ago
59%
Declines
ODDS (%)
N/A
N/A
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 5 days ago
56%
Bearish Trend 5 days ago
53%
Aroon
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 5 days ago
36%
Bullish Trend 5 days ago
55%
View a ticker or compare two or three
Interact to see
Advertisement
CBUMY
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
HCMLF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
Interesting Tickers
1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
1 Day
ETFs / NAMEPrice $Chg $Chg %
FLSA33.250.40
+1.22%
Franklin FTSE Saudi Arabia ETF
XDTE44.350.27
+0.61%
Roundhill S&P 500 0DTE Cov Cll Strat ETF
MDYV82.290.36
+0.44%
SPDR® S&P 400 Mid Cap Value ETF
BSMC32.460.14
+0.44%
Brandes U.S. Small-Mid Cap Value ETF
WUSA24.78N/A
N/A
Simplify Wolfe US Equity 150/50 ETF

CBUMY and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, CBUMY has been loosely correlated with AHCHY. These tickers have moved in lockstep 46% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if CBUMY jumps, then AHCHY could also see price increases.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To CBUMY
1D Price
Change %
CBUMY100%
N/A
AHCHY - CBUMY
46%
Loosely correlated
+0.75%
XYIGY - CBUMY
39%
Loosely correlated
N/A
AHCHF - CBUMY
19%
Poorly correlated
N/A
CBUMF - CBUMY
18%
Poorly correlated
N/A
CMTOY - CBUMY
11%
Poorly correlated
+8.95%
More

HCMLF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that HCMLF and HCMLY have been poorly correlated (+31% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that HCMLF and HCMLY's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To HCMLF
1D Price
Change %
HCMLF100%
+2.09%
HCMLY - HCMLF
31%
Poorly correlated
+0.08%
HDLMY - HCMLF
21%
Poorly correlated
+0.28%
CBUMY - HCMLF
7%
Poorly correlated
N/A
FRCEF - HCMLF
6%
Poorly correlated
N/A
CMTOY - HCMLF
5%
Poorly correlated
+8.95%
More