CHDRF vs SWGNF
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 CHDRF is a Hold and SWGNF 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).
CHDRF’s FA Score shows that 2 FA rating(s) are green whileSWGNF’s FA Score has 2 green FA rating(s).
- CHDRF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
- SWGNF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
Price Growth
CHDRF (@Other Consumer Specialties) experienced а +4.84% price change this week, while SWGNF (@Other Consumer Specialties) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Other Consumer Specialties industry was +3.01%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +2.77%, and the average quarterly price growth was +3.22%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Other Consumer Specialties (+3.01% weekly)‘Other Consumer Specialties’ represents an industry that typically sells durable consumer products, but do not have a classification in another category. The products include jewelry, smoke detectors, watches, collectibles and safety products. MSA Safety (makes products which enhances the safety and health of workers and protect facility infrastructures), Matthews International (memorialization business), Fitbit (makes wireless-enabled wearable technology devices that gauge data such as the number of steps walked, heart rate, quality of sleep), and Fossil Group (makes watches and accessories) have some of the largest market caps in this group.
| CHDRF | SWGNF | CHDRF / SWGNF | |
| Capitalization | 159B | 16.1B | 988% |
| EBITDA | 29.8B | 1.7B | 1,752% |
| Gain YTD | 7.560 | -3.736 | -202% |
| P/E Ratio | 21.98 | 12.33 | 178% |
| Revenue | 84.7B | 7.91B | 1,071% |
| Total Cash | 10.5B | 2.12B | 494% |
| Total Debt | 38.2B | 27M | 141,481% |
CHDRF | SWGNF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 29 | 90 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 33 Fair valued | 18 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 59 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 10 | 59 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 49 | 83 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 71 | 18 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 50 | 50 |
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.
SWGNF's Valuation (18) in the null industry is in the same range as CHDRF (33). This means that SWGNF’s stock grew similarly to CHDRF’s over the last 12 months.
CHDRF's Profit vs Risk Rating (59) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for SWGNF (100). This means that CHDRF’s stock grew somewhat faster than SWGNF’s over the last 12 months.
CHDRF's SMR Rating (10) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for SWGNF (59). This means that CHDRF’s stock grew somewhat faster than SWGNF’s over the last 12 months.
CHDRF's Price Growth Rating (49) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for SWGNF (83). This means that CHDRF’s stock grew somewhat faster than SWGNF’s over the last 12 months.
SWGNF's P/E Growth Rating (18) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CHDRF (71). This means that SWGNF’s stock grew somewhat faster than CHDRF’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 (%) |
CHDRF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, CHDRF has been loosely correlated with LVMUY. These tickers have moved in lockstep 42% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if CHDRF jumps, then LVMUY could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CHDRF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CHDRF | 100% | -0.67% | ||
| LVMUY - CHDRF | 42% Loosely correlated | -1.45% | ||
| LVMHF - CHDRF | 42% Loosely correlated | -0.80% | ||
| SWGAY - CHDRF | 36% Loosely correlated | +1.38% | ||
| HESAY - CHDRF | 35% Loosely correlated | +0.53% | ||
| PPRUY - CHDRF | 32% Poorly correlated | +2.80% | ||
More | ||||
SWGNF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that SWGNF and LKFLF have been poorly correlated (+24% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that SWGNF and LKFLF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To SWGNF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SWGNF | 100% | N/A | ||
| LKFLF - SWGNF | 24% Poorly correlated | -2.41% | ||
| SWGAY - SWGNF | 21% Poorly correlated | +1.38% | ||
| PPRUY - SWGNF | 20% Poorly correlated | +2.80% | ||
| CHDRF - SWGNF | 20% Poorly correlated | -0.67% | ||
| WOSGF - SWGNF | 13% Poorly correlated | -1.26% | ||
More | ||||