CCDBF
Price
$57.48
Change
-$0.40 (-0.69%)
Updated
Jun 27 closing price
Capitalization
9.1B
GRVWF
Price
$0.28
Change
-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Updated
May 1 closing price
Capitalization
390.84M
Interact to see
Advertisement

CCDBF vs GRVWF

Header iconCCDBF vs GRVWF Comparison
Open Charts CCDBF vs GRVWFBanner chart's image
CCL Industries
Price$57.48
Change-$0.40 (-0.69%)
Volume$6.17K
Capitalization9.1B
Greatview Aseptic Packaging
Price$0.28
Change-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Volume$2.5K
Capitalization390.84M
CCDBF vs GRVWF Comparison Chart in %
Loading...
CCDBF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
GRVWF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
CCDBF vs. GRVWF commentary
Jun 30, 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 CCDBF is a Buy and GRVWF is a Hold.

Interact to see
Advertisement
COMPARISON
Comparison
Jun 30, 2025
Stock price -- (CCDBF: $57.48 vs. GRVWF: $0.28)
Brand notoriety: CCDBF and GRVWF are both not notable
Both companies represent the Containers/Packaging industry
Current volume relative to the 65-day Moving Average: CCDBF: 36% vs. GRVWF: 114%
Market capitalization -- CCDBF: $9.1B vs. GRVWF: $390.84M
CCDBF [@Containers/Packaging] is valued at $9.1B. GRVWF’s [@Containers/Packaging] market capitalization is $390.84M. The market cap for tickers in the [@Containers/Packaging] industry ranges from $66.8B to $0. The average market capitalization across the [@Containers/Packaging] industry is $4.55B.

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).

CCDBF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileGRVWF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).

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

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.

CCDBF’s TA Score shows that 4 TA indicator(s) are bullish while GRVWF’s TA Score has 3 bullish TA indicator(s).

  • CCDBF’s TA Score: 4 bullish, 3 bearish.
  • GRVWF’s TA Score: 3 bullish, 0 bearish.
According to our system of comparison, GRVWF is a better buy in the short-term than CCDBF.

Price Growth

CCDBF (@Containers/Packaging) experienced а +1.91% price change this week, while GRVWF (@Containers/Packaging) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.

The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Containers/Packaging industry was +1.91%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +3.93%, and the average quarterly price growth was -1.40%.

Industries' Descriptions

@Containers/Packaging (+1.91% weekly)

The containers/packing sector includes companies that manufacture containers (like plastic and aluminum food containers, glass bottles, metal cans, cardboard, storage and waste bags, giftwraps etc.) and provide packing services. Food-and-beverage and household products are major markets for this business. Several companies in this industry cater to international markets in addition to serving domestic customers. Consumer spending habits could potentially affect this industry’s performance. Some products, that use oil-based materials as inputs, are likely to see their costs of production get impacted (to some extent) by energy price movements. The ever-expanding e-commerce market has only supercharged the amount/frequency of goods shipped domestically and across borders, thereby creating ample potential opportunities for containers and packaging businesses. Ball Corporation, International Paper Company, Amcor Plc and Packaging Corporation of America are some of the largest U.S. companies in this industry.

SUMMARIES
Loading...
FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
CCDBF($9.1B) has a higher market cap than GRVWF($391M). CCDBF has higher P/E ratio than GRVWF: CCDBF (23.44) vs GRVWF (14.22). CCDBF YTD gains are higher at: 12.145 vs. GRVWF (-14.471). CCDBF has higher annual earnings (EBITDA): 1.25B vs. GRVWF (260M). CCDBF has more cash in the bank: 765M vs. GRVWF (585M). GRVWF has less debt than CCDBF: GRVWF (322M) vs CCDBF (2.28B). CCDBF has higher revenues than GRVWF: CCDBF (6.65B) vs GRVWF (3.69B).
CCDBFGRVWFCCDBF / GRVWF
Capitalization9.1B391M2,327%
EBITDA1.25B260M480%
Gain YTD12.145-14.471-84%
P/E Ratio23.4414.22165%
Revenue6.65B3.69B180%
Total Cash765M585M131%
Total Debt2.28B322M709%
FUNDAMENTALS RATINGS
CCDBF vs GRVWF: Fundamental Ratings
CCDBF
GRVWF
OUTLOOK RATING
1..100
5050
VALUATION
overvalued / fair valued / undervalued
1..100
55
Fair valued
21
Undervalued
PROFIT vs RISK RATING
1..100
32100
SMR RATING
1..100
5175
PRICE GROWTH RATING
1..100
4859
P/E GROWTH RATING
1..100
8569
SEASONALITY SCORE
1..100
n/an/a

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.

GRVWF's Valuation (21) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CCDBF (55). This means that GRVWF’s stock grew somewhat faster than CCDBF’s over the last 12 months.

CCDBF's Profit vs Risk Rating (32) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for GRVWF (100). This means that CCDBF’s stock grew significantly faster than GRVWF’s over the last 12 months.

CCDBF's SMR Rating (51) in the null industry is in the same range as GRVWF (75). This means that CCDBF’s stock grew similarly to GRVWF’s over the last 12 months.

CCDBF's Price Growth Rating (48) in the null industry is in the same range as GRVWF (59). This means that CCDBF’s stock grew similarly to GRVWF’s over the last 12 months.

GRVWF's P/E Growth Rating (69) in the null industry is in the same range as CCDBF (85). This means that GRVWF’s stock grew similarly to CCDBF’s over the last 12 months.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
CCDBFGRVWF
RSI
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
58%
N/A
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
46%
N/A
Momentum
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
51%
N/A
MACD
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
49%
N/A
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
47%
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
45%
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
47%
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
52%
Advances
ODDS (%)
N/A
N/A
Declines
ODDS (%)
N/A
N/A
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
71%
N/A
Aroon
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
41%
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
54%
View a ticker or compare two or three
Interact to see
Advertisement
CCDBF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
GRVWF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
Interesting Tickers
1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
1 Day
CRYPTO / NAMEPrice $Chg $Chg %
RSR.X0.0071440.000236
+3.42%
Reserve Rights cryptocurrency
GSJY42.160.72
+1.73%
Goldman Sachs ActiveBeta® Japan Eq ETF
STRV39.850.13
+0.33%
Strive 500 ETF
FLTB50.350.02
+0.03%
Fidelity Limited Term Bond ETF
UPGR17.79N/A
N/A
Xtrackers US Green Infras Sel Eq ETF

CCDBF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that CCDBF and TCLAF have been poorly correlated (+26% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CCDBF and TCLAF's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To CCDBF
1D Price
Change %
CCDBF100%
-0.69%
TCLAF - CCDBF
26%
Poorly correlated
-0.14%
AMCCF - CCDBF
-2%
Poorly correlated
N/A
GRVWF - CCDBF
-3%
Poorly correlated
N/A
FUJSF - CCDBF
-3%
Poorly correlated
N/A
HOYFF - CCDBF
-4%
Poorly correlated
N/A
More

GRVWF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that GRVWF and HOYFF have been poorly correlated (+3% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that GRVWF and HOYFF's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To GRVWF
1D Price
Change %
GRVWF100%
N/A
HOYFF - GRVWF
3%
Poorly correlated
N/A
AMCCF - GRVWF
3%
Poorly correlated
N/A
HXGCF - GRVWF
2%
Poorly correlated
N/A
IFLXF - GRVWF
1%
Poorly correlated
N/A
CADNF - GRVWF
1%
Poorly correlated
-0.92%
More