CGIFF vs CLZNF
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 CGIFF is a Hold and CLZNF 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).
CGIFF’s FA Score shows that 3 FA rating(s) are green whileCLZNF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).
- CGIFF’s FA Score: 3 green, 2 red.
- CLZNF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
Price Growth
CGIFF (@Chemicals: Specialty) experienced а -2.00% price change this week, while CLZNF (@Chemicals: Specialty) price change was -8.11% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Chemicals: Specialty industry was -3.21%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -5.51%, and the average quarterly price growth was -6.79%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Chemicals: Specialty (-3.21% weekly)The specialty chemicals sector includes companies that produce chemicals and industrial gases, which are of relatively high-value, often made to customer specifications. Examples of specialty chemicals are electronic chemicals, industrial gases, coatings, adhesives and sealants, industrial and institutional cleaning chemicals. The products are often valued on the basis of their purposes/performances rather than for their composition. Linde Plc, Ecolab Inc., Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., and Dow, Inc. are some of the largest companies making specialty chemicals.
| CGIFF | CLZNF | CGIFF / CLZNF | |
| Capitalization | 732M | 5.38B | 14% |
| EBITDA | 565M | 816M | 69% |
| Gain YTD | 22.635 | -11.695 | -194% |
| P/E Ratio | 5.58 | 13.95 | 40% |
| Revenue | 1.85B | 4.9B | 38% |
| Total Cash | 21.5M | 617M | 3% |
| Total Debt | 864M | 1.55B | 56% |
CGIFF | CLZNF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 81 | 92 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 31 Undervalued | 29 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 95 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 24 | 42 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 48 | 82 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 19 | 40 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 50 | 45 |
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.
CLZNF's Valuation (29) in the null industry is in the same range as CGIFF (31). This means that CLZNF’s stock grew similarly to CGIFF’s over the last 12 months.
CGIFF's Profit vs Risk Rating (95) in the null industry is in the same range as CLZNF (100). This means that CGIFF’s stock grew similarly to CLZNF’s over the last 12 months.
CGIFF's SMR Rating (24) in the null industry is in the same range as CLZNF (42). This means that CGIFF’s stock grew similarly to CLZNF’s over the last 12 months.
CGIFF's Price Growth Rating (48) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CLZNF (82). This means that CGIFF’s stock grew somewhat faster than CLZNF’s over the last 12 months.
CGIFF's P/E Growth Rating (19) in the null industry is in the same range as CLZNF (40). This means that CGIFF’s stock grew similarly to CLZNF’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 (%) |
CGIFF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that CGIFF and OEC have been poorly correlated (+24% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CGIFF and OEC's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CGIFF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CGIFF | 100% | +0.54% | ||
| OEC - CGIFF | 24% Poorly correlated | +0.52% | ||
| SKFOF - CGIFF | 24% Poorly correlated | -0.71% | ||
| JMPLY - CGIFF | 23% Poorly correlated | +0.91% | ||
| SXYAY - CGIFF | 22% Poorly correlated | -0.19% | ||
| FUPPF - CGIFF | 22% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
CLZNF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that CLZNF and ZEOOF have been poorly correlated (+26% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CLZNF and ZEOOF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CLZNF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CLZNF | 100% | N/A | ||
| ZEOOF - CLZNF | 26% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| SVYSF - CLZNF | 23% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CGIFF - CLZNF | 12% Poorly correlated | +0.54% | ||
| COIHF - CLZNF | 12% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| COVTY - CLZNF | 9% Poorly correlated | -0.63% | ||
More | ||||