CIADF
Price
$1.90
Change
+$0.04 (+2.15%)
Updated
Dec 12 closing price
Capitalization
7.55B
Intraday BUY SELL Signals
FPAFF
Price
$0.74
Change
-$0.01 (-1.33%)
Updated
Dec 23 closing price
Capitalization
3.32B
Intraday BUY SELL Signals
Interact to see
Advertisement

CIADF vs FPAFF

Header iconCIADF vs FPAFF Comparison
Open Charts CIADF vs FPAFFBanner chart's image
China Mengniu Dairy
Price$1.90
Change+$0.04 (+2.15%)
Volume$397
Capitalization7.55B
First Pacific
Price$0.74
Change-$0.01 (-1.33%)
Volume$27.5K
Capitalization3.32B
CIADF vs FPAFF Comparison Chart in %
CIADF
Daily Signal:
Gain/Loss:
FPAFF
Daily Signal:
Gain/Loss:
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
CIADF vs. FPAFF commentary
Dec 25, 2025

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 CIADF is a Buy and FPAFF is a Hold.

Interact to see
Advertisement
COMPARISON
Comparison
Dec 25, 2025
Stock price -- (CIADF: $1.90 vs. FPAFF: $0.74)
Brand notoriety: CIADF and FPAFF are both not notable
Both companies represent the Food: Major Diversified industry
Current volume relative to the 65-day Moving Average: CIADF: 1% vs. FPAFF: 54%
Market capitalization -- CIADF: $7.55B vs. FPAFF: $3.32B
CIADF [@Food: Major Diversified] is valued at $7.55B. FPAFF’s [@Food: Major Diversified] market capitalization is $3.32B. The market cap for tickers in the [@Food: Major Diversified] industry ranges from $254.24B to $0. The average market capitalization across the [@Food: Major Diversified] industry is $7.13B.

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).

CIADF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileFPAFF’s FA Score has 2 green FA rating(s).

  • CIADF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
  • FPAFF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
According to our system of comparison, CIADF is a better buy in the long-term than FPAFF.

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.

CIADF’s TA Score shows that 4 TA indicator(s) are bullish while FPAFF’s TA Score has 3 bullish TA indicator(s).

  • CIADF’s TA Score: 4 bullish, 3 bearish.
  • FPAFF’s TA Score: 3 bullish, 6 bearish.
According to our system of comparison, CIADF is a better buy in the short-term than FPAFF.

Price Growth

CIADF (@Food: Major Diversified) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while FPAFF (@Food: Major Diversified) price change was -0.03% for the same time period.

The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Food: Major Diversified industry was -0.66%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -2.13%, and the average quarterly price growth was +5.56%.

Industries' Descriptions

@Food: Major Diversified (-0.66% weekly)

Companies in this industry usually make a diverse range of agricultural and/or processed food. Some prominent names in this segment are Mondelez International, which makes chocolates, biscuits, cookies etc. The Kraft Heinz Company specializes in ketchups, sauces, fruit drink pouches and many more. General Mills, Inc. sells flour and cereal. Kellogg is famous for its snacks and breakfast cereal. And so on down the line. As more and more consumers are looking for healthier options in food in recent years, several legacy food companies have responded by revamping brands to include organic and no-added-sugar versions, and/or acquiring healthy food firms, and even streamlining operations.

SUMMARIES
Loading...
FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
CIADF($7.55B) has a higher market cap than FPAFF($3.32B). CIADF has higher P/E ratio than FPAFF: CIADF (515.87) vs FPAFF (4.41). FPAFF YTD gains are higher at: 30.931 vs. CIADF (28.378).
CIADFFPAFFCIADF / FPAFF
Capitalization7.55B3.32B228%
EBITDAN/A2.86B-
Gain YTD28.37830.93192%
P/E Ratio515.874.4111,701%
RevenueN/A10.5B-
Total CashN/A2.35B-
Total DebtN/A11.7B-
FUNDAMENTALS RATINGS
CIADF vs FPAFF: Fundamental Ratings
CIADF
FPAFF
OUTLOOK RATING
1..100
389
VALUATION
overvalued / fair valued / undervalued
1..100
40
Fair valued
15
Undervalued
PROFIT vs RISK RATING
1..100
10019
SMR RATING
1..100
5697
PRICE GROWTH RATING
1..100
5760
P/E GROWTH RATING
1..100
176
SEASONALITY SCORE
1..100
5511

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.

FPAFF's Valuation (15) in the null industry is in the same range as CIADF (40). This means that FPAFF’s stock grew similarly to CIADF’s over the last 12 months.

FPAFF's Profit vs Risk Rating (19) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for CIADF (100). This means that FPAFF’s stock grew significantly faster than CIADF’s over the last 12 months.

CIADF's SMR Rating (56) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for FPAFF (97). This means that CIADF’s stock grew somewhat faster than FPAFF’s over the last 12 months.

CIADF's Price Growth Rating (57) in the null industry is in the same range as FPAFF (60). This means that CIADF’s stock grew similarly to FPAFF’s over the last 12 months.

CIADF's P/E Growth Rating (1) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for FPAFF (76). This means that CIADF’s stock grew significantly faster than FPAFF’s over the last 12 months.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
CIADFFPAFF
RSI
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
70%
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
33%
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
76%
Momentum
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
23%
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
55%
MACD
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
22%
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
62%
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
13%
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
49%
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
13%
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
46%
Advances
ODDS (%)
N/A
N/A
Declines
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bearish Trend 28 days ago
45%
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
25%
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
89%
Aroon
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
26%
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
74%
View a ticker or compare two or three
Interact to see
Advertisement
CIADF
Daily Signal:
Gain/Loss:
FPAFF
Daily Signal:
Gain/Loss:
Interesting Tickers
1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
1 Day
ETFs / NAMEPrice $Chg $Chg %
BUYW14.330.06
+0.42%
Main BuyWrite ETF
AVGB50.790.08
+0.17%
Avantis Credit ETF
JUCY22.380.03
+0.13%
Aptus Enhanced Yield ETF
GHTA29.87N/A
N/A
Goose Hollow Tactical Allocation ETF
IAUI57.26-0.79
-1.36%
NEOS Gold High Income ETF

CIADF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that CIADF and SHVTF have been poorly correlated (+23% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CIADF and SHVTF's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To CIADF
1D Price
Change %
CIADF100%
N/A
SHVTF - CIADF
23%
Poorly correlated
N/A
CFEIY - CIADF
21%
Poorly correlated
N/A
FPAFF - CIADF
5%
Poorly correlated
N/A
DANOY - CIADF
4%
Poorly correlated
+0.39%
CIADY - CIADF
0%
Poorly correlated
-1.29%
More

FPAFF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that FPAFF and BRRLY have been poorly correlated (+20% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that FPAFF and BRRLY's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To FPAFF
1D Price
Change %
FPAFF100%
N/A
BRRLY - FPAFF
20%
Poorly correlated
-0.22%
CUSI - FPAFF
16%
Poorly correlated
N/A
FPAFY - FPAFF
13%
Poorly correlated
-0.87%
CIADY - FPAFF
11%
Poorly correlated
-1.29%
CIADF - FPAFF
5%
Poorly correlated
N/A
More