CFIC vs IFS
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 CFIC is a Hold and IFS 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).
CFIC’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileIFS’s FA Score has 2 green FA rating(s).
- CFIC’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- IFS’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 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.
IFS’s TA Score shows that 4 TA indicator(s) are bullish.
- IFS’s TA Score: 4 bullish, 6 bearish.
Price Growth
CFIC (@Regional Banks) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while IFS (@Regional Banks) price change was +5.99% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Regional Banks industry was +3.11%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -2.66%, and the average quarterly price growth was +1.78%.
Reported Earning Dates
IFS is expected to report earnings on Aug 11, 2025.
Industries' Descriptions
@Regional Banks (+3.11% weekly)Regional banks have a smaller reach than major banks, and cater mostly to one region of a country, such as a state or within a group of states. They offer services often similar – albeit with some limitations/smaller scale – compared to major banks. Taking deposits, making loans, mortgages, leases, credit cards , fund management, insurance and investment banking. SunTrust Banks, State Street Corp., M&T Bank Corp. are some examples of U.S. regional banks.
| CFIC | IFS | CFIC / IFS | |
| Capitalization | 7.75M | 2.77B | 0% |
| EBITDA | N/A | N/A | - |
| Gain YTD | 0.000 | 7.396 | - |
| P/E Ratio | N/A | 9.76 | - |
| Revenue | 14.4M | 6.82B | 0% |
| Total Cash | N/A | N/A | - |
| Total Debt | 18M | 10.4B | 0% |
CFIC | IFS | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 13 Undervalued | 59 Fair valued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 38 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 92 | 7 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 69 | 44 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 100 | 26 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | n/a | 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.
CFIC's Valuation (13) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for IFS (59). This means that CFIC’s stock grew somewhat faster than IFS’s over the last 12 months.
IFS's Profit vs Risk Rating (38) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CFIC (100). This means that IFS’s stock grew somewhat faster than CFIC’s over the last 12 months.
IFS's SMR Rating (7) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for CFIC (92). This means that IFS’s stock grew significantly faster than CFIC’s over the last 12 months.
IFS's Price Growth Rating (44) in the null industry is in the same range as CFIC (69). This means that IFS’s stock grew similarly to CFIC’s over the last 12 months.
IFS's P/E Growth Rating (26) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for CFIC (100). This means that IFS’s stock grew significantly faster than CFIC’s over the last 12 months.
| IFS | |
|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 83% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 69% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 55% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 69% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 69% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 71% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 71% |
| Declines ODDS (%) | 14 days ago 69% |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 63% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 72% |
CFIC and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, CFIC has been loosely correlated with BOID. These tickers have moved in lockstep 34% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if CFIC jumps, then BOID could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CFIC | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CFIC | 100% | N/A | ||
| BOID - CFIC | 34% Loosely correlated | N/A | ||
| HRGG - CFIC | 32% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| IFS - CFIC | 23% Poorly correlated | +1.03% | ||
| CADE - CFIC | 22% Poorly correlated | +0.07% | ||
| HFBL - CFIC | 22% Poorly correlated | +0.60% | ||
More | ||||
IFS and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, IFS has been loosely correlated with BSAC. These tickers have moved in lockstep 46% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if IFS jumps, then BSAC could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To IFS | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IFS | 100% | +1.03% | ||
| BSAC - IFS | 46% Loosely correlated | +2.04% | ||
| BAP - IFS | 45% Loosely correlated | -0.03% | ||
| BCH - IFS | 36% Loosely correlated | +0.76% | ||
| TCBX - IFS | 34% Loosely correlated | +1.32% | ||
| BWB - IFS | 32% Poorly correlated | +1.38% | ||
More | ||||