CDOAF vs QVCGB
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 CDOAF is a Hold and QVCGB is a Buy.
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).
CDOAF’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whileQVCGB’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- CDOAF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
- QVCGB’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
Price Growth
CDOAF (@Internet Retail) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while QVCGB (@Internet Retail) price change was -39.71% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Internet Retail industry was -1.45%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -1.36%, and the average quarterly price growth was +0.46%.
Reported Earning Dates
QVCGB is expected to report earnings on May 02, 2025.
Industries' Descriptions
@Internet Retail (-1.45% weekly)The internet retail industry includes companies that sell products and services through the Internet. With more and more consumers using online retailers, the companies have seen a big increase in the use of their services. Some of the companies in the group are focused on selling business-to-business products and services. Others sell business-to-consumer products and services. Internet retailers offer a wide variety of products like books, apparel, and electronics. Some companies even specialize in only one or two categories. One potentially critical factor for players to thrive in this space is the quality and speed of product delivery. This requires an investment in efficient distribution networks. Things like logistics are important factors in the success in the extremely competitive industry. For a company to stay relevant in the industry it must have effective pricing strategies and upgraded websites. The websites must be easy to navigate and engaging for customers. In addition to the revenues generated from straight sales, internet retailers can generate revenue from subscription fees and advertising. Amazon.com, Inc., Alibaba Group, and JD.com are some of the global leaders.
| CDOAF | QVCGB | CDOAF / QVCGB | |
| Capitalization | 76.2M | 151M | 50% |
| EBITDA | -26.9M | N/A | - |
| Gain YTD | 0.000 | 101.730 | - |
| P/E Ratio | N/A | N/A | - |
| Revenue | 435M | N/A | - |
| Total Cash | 145M | N/A | - |
| Total Debt | N/A | N/A | - |
QVCGB | ||
|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 94 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 61 Fair valued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 97 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 91 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 90 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | n/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.
| RSI ODDS (%) |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) |
| Momentum ODDS (%) |
| MACD ODDS (%) |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) |
| Advances ODDS (%) |
| Declines ODDS (%) |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) |
| Aroon ODDS (%) |
CDOAF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, CDOAF has been loosely correlated with LOGC. These tickers have moved in lockstep 45% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if CDOAF jumps, then LOGC could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CDOAF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CDOAF | 100% | N/A | ||
| LOGC - CDOAF | 45% Loosely correlated | -5.66% | ||
| QVCGB - CDOAF | 30% Poorly correlated | -1.52% | ||
| GLBE - CDOAF | 6% Poorly correlated | -3.94% | ||
| TDUP - CDOAF | 5% Poorly correlated | -1.69% | ||
| JWEL - CDOAF | 2% Poorly correlated | -0.21% | ||
More | ||||
QVCGB and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that QVCGB and CDOAF have been poorly correlated (+30% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that QVCGB and CDOAF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To QVCGB | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| QVCGB | 100% | -1.52% | ||
| CDOAF - QVCGB | 30% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| HOUR - QVCGB | 29% Poorly correlated | +2.33% | ||
| BYON - QVCGB | 22% Poorly correlated | -12.05% | ||
| CART - QVCGB | 22% Poorly correlated | -3.98% | ||
| NEGG - QVCGB | 21% Poorly correlated | -7.28% | ||
More | ||||