Advertisement
CBYDF vs TBVPY
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 CBYDF is a Hold and TBVPY 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).
CBYDF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileTBVPY’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).
- CBYDF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- TBVPY’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
Price Growth
CBYDF (@Beverages: Alcoholic) experienced а -4.88% price change this week, while TBVPY (@Beverages: Alcoholic) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Beverages: Alcoholic industry was +0.28%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -4.02%, and the average quarterly price growth was -3.13%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Beverages: Alcoholic (+0.28% weekly)The alcoholic beverage market includes beer, wine, and spirits. From $230 billion in 2015, the industry has grown to around $250 billion by 2019. In recent years, alcoholic beverage makers have been looking to expand distribution and purchase channels, such as through online stores (e.g. e-commerce platform Drizly) and convenience stores. Anheuser-Busch In Bev and Diageo are major global alcoholic beverage companies, while U.S.-owned companies include Constellation Brands and Brown-Forman Corp. among several others.
| CBYDF | TBVPY | CBYDF / TBVPY | |
| Capitalization | 325M | 11.4B | 3% |
| EBITDA | 47.4M | 53.5B | 0% |
| Gain YTD | 11.825 | 20.076 | 59% |
| P/E Ratio | 18.94 | 12.95 | 146% |
| Revenue | 160M | 278B | 0% |
| Total Cash | 46M | 45.4B | 0% |
| Total Debt | 3.65M | 211B | 0% |
CBYDF | TBVPY | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 88 | 47 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 6 Undervalued | 13 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 90 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 57 | 100 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 59 | 43 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 75 | 77 | |
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.
CBYDF's Valuation (6) in the null industry is in the same range as TBVPY (13). This means that CBYDF’s stock grew similarly to TBVPY’s over the last 12 months.
TBVPY's Profit vs Risk Rating (90) in the null industry is in the same range as CBYDF (100). This means that TBVPY’s stock grew similarly to CBYDF’s over the last 12 months.
CBYDF's SMR Rating (57) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for TBVPY (100). This means that CBYDF’s stock grew somewhat faster than TBVPY’s over the last 12 months.
TBVPY's Price Growth Rating (43) in the null industry is in the same range as CBYDF (59). This means that TBVPY’s stock grew similarly to CBYDF’s over the last 12 months.
CBYDF's P/E Growth Rating (75) in the null industry is in the same range as TBVPY (77). This means that CBYDF’s stock grew similarly to TBVPY’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 (%) |
Advertisement
CBYDF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that CBYDF and KNBWF have been poorly correlated (+32% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CBYDF and KNBWF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CBYDF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CBYDF | 100% | -1.42% | ||
| KNBWF - CBYDF | 32% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| TBVPY - CBYDF | 25% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CABGY - CBYDF | 21% Poorly correlated | -1.38% | ||
| DVDCF - CBYDF | 14% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CABJF - CBYDF | 11% Poorly correlated | +1.93% | ||
More | ||||
TBVPY and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, TBVPY has been loosely correlated with KNBWF. These tickers have moved in lockstep 59% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if TBVPY jumps, then KNBWF could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To TBVPY | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TBVPY | 100% | N/A | ||
| KNBWF - TBVPY | 59% Loosely correlated | N/A | ||
| CABGY - TBVPY | 38% Loosely correlated | -1.38% | ||
| FMXUF - TBVPY | 30% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CBYDF - TBVPY | 25% Poorly correlated | -1.42% | ||
| KNBWY - TBVPY | 24% Poorly correlated | -1.10% | ||
More | ||||