Advertisement
CCDBF vs HOYFF
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 HOYFF 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).
CCDBF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileHOYFF’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- CCDBF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- HOYFF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
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 HOYFF’s TA Score has 3 bullish TA indicator(s).
- CCDBF’s TA Score: 4 bullish, 3 bearish.
- HOYFF’s TA Score: 3 bullish, 2 bearish.
Price Growth
CCDBF (@Containers/Packaging) experienced а +1.91% price change this week, while HOYFF (@Containers/Packaging) price change was -5.20% 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.
| CCDBF | HOYFF | CCDBF / HOYFF | |
| Capitalization | 9.1B | 3.72B | 244% |
| EBITDA | 1.25B | 590M | 212% |
| Gain YTD | 12.145 | -9.567 | -127% |
| P/E Ratio | 23.44 | 14.77 | 159% |
| Revenue | 6.65B | 4.38B | 152% |
| Total Cash | 765M | 334M | 229% |
| Total Debt | 2.28B | 1.81B | 126% |
CCDBF | HOYFF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 55 Fair valued | 36 Fair valued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 32 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 51 | 60 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 48 | 78 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 85 | 89 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | n/a | 19 |
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.
HOYFF's Valuation (36) in the null industry is in the same range as CCDBF (55). This means that HOYFF’s stock grew similarly to 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 HOYFF (100). This means that CCDBF’s stock grew significantly faster than HOYFF’s over the last 12 months.
CCDBF's SMR Rating (51) in the null industry is in the same range as HOYFF (60). This means that CCDBF’s stock grew similarly to HOYFF’s over the last 12 months.
CCDBF's Price Growth Rating (48) in the null industry is in the same range as HOYFF (78). This means that CCDBF’s stock grew similarly to HOYFF’s over the last 12 months.
CCDBF's P/E Growth Rating (85) in the null industry is in the same range as HOYFF (89). This means that CCDBF’s stock grew similarly to HOYFF’s over the last 12 months.
| CCDBF | HOYFF | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 58% | N/A |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 46% | 4 days ago 33% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 51% | 4 days ago 11% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 49% | N/A |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 47% | 4 days ago 10% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 47% | 4 days ago 3% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Declines ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 71% | N/A |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 41% | 4 days ago 40% |
Advertisement
| 1 Day | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| ETFs / NAME | Price $ | Chg $ | Chg % |
| NMS | 11.31 | 0.01 | +0.12% |
| Nuveen Minnesota Quality Municipal Income Fund | |||
| DEHP | 27.93 | 0.02 | +0.08% |
| Dimensional Em Mkts High Prof ETF | |||
| PWV | 61.72 | N/A | N/A |
| Invesco Large Cap Value ETF | |||
| CNCR | 9.02 | N/A | N/A |
| Range Cancer Therapeutics ETF | |||
| PMBS | 48.86 | -0.17 | -0.35% |
| PIMCO Mortgage-Backed Securities Act 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.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CCDBF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CCDBF | 100% | -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 | ||||
HOYFF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that HOYFF and ACGX have been poorly correlated (+6% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that HOYFF and ACGX's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To HOYFF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HOYFF | 100% | N/A | ||
| ACGX - HOYFF | 6% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| GRVWF - HOYFF | 3% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| HXGCF - HOYFF | 1% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| AMCCF - HOYFF | -0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| IFLXF - HOYFF | -0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||