Advertisement
CICOF vs CMHHF
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 CICOF is a Hold and CMHHF 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).
CICOF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileCMHHF’s FA Score has 2 green FA rating(s).
- CICOF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- CMHHF’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.
CICOF’s TA Score shows that 3 TA indicator(s) are bullish while CMHHF’s TA Score has 4 bullish TA indicator(s).
- CICOF’s TA Score: 3 bullish, 3 bearish.
- CMHHF’s TA Score: 4 bullish, 4 bearish.
Price Growth
CICOF (@Marine Shipping) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while CMHHF (@Marine Shipping) price change was -8.75% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Marine Shipping industry was +431.17%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +7.62%, and the average quarterly price growth was +21.27%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Marine Shipping (+431.17% weekly)The marine shipping industry provides passenger transportation or cargo shipping services via waterways. This industry includes freight towage, ferry services and warehousing on deep-sea and inland waterways. The aviation sector may have reduced the popularity of sea travel for several passengers, but it is still in demand for short trips and pleasure cruises. Teekay Offshore Partners L.P. Cum Red Perp Pfd., Kirby Corporation and Seaspan Corporation are some of the well-known names in the business.
| CICOF | CMHHF | CICOF / CMHHF | |
| Capitalization | 30.3B | 8.42B | 360% |
| EBITDA | 35.9B | N/A | - |
| Gain YTD | 1.765 | -8.291 | -21% |
| P/E Ratio | 3.82 | 8.49 | 45% |
| Revenue | 176B | N/A | - |
| Total Cash | N/A | N/A | - |
| Total Debt | N/A | N/A | - |
CICOF | CMHHF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 37 | 96 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 2 Undervalued | 12 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 67 | 60 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 64 | 75 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 57 | 62 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 67 | 32 | |
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.
CICOF's Valuation (2) in the null industry is in the same range as CMHHF (12). This means that CICOF’s stock grew similarly to CMHHF’s over the last 12 months.
CMHHF's Profit vs Risk Rating (60) in the null industry is in the same range as CICOF (67). This means that CMHHF’s stock grew similarly to CICOF’s over the last 12 months.
CICOF's SMR Rating (64) in the null industry is in the same range as CMHHF (75). This means that CICOF’s stock grew similarly to CMHHF’s over the last 12 months.
CICOF's Price Growth Rating (57) in the null industry is in the same range as CMHHF (62). This means that CICOF’s stock grew similarly to CMHHF’s over the last 12 months.
CMHHF's P/E Growth Rating (32) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CICOF (67). This means that CMHHF’s stock grew somewhat faster than CICOF’s over the last 12 months.
| CICOF | CMHHF | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | 1 day ago 68% | 1 day ago 72% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 1 day ago 81% | 1 day ago 59% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 1 day ago 75% | 1 day ago 32% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 1 day ago 70% | 1 day ago 37% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 1 day ago 74% | 1 day ago 31% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 1 day ago 63% | 1 day ago 27% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Declines ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | N/A | 1 day ago 90% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | N/A | 1 day ago 49% |
Advertisement
| 1 Day | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| ETFs / NAME | Price $ | Chg $ | Chg % |
| BIDD | 30.48 | 0.23 | +0.76% |
| iShares International Dividend ActiveETF | |||
| AVES | 62.46 | 0.21 | +0.34% |
| Avantis Emerging Markets Value ETF | |||
| PSCX | 31.25 | 0.04 | +0.13% |
| Pacer Swan SOS Conservative (Jan) ETF | |||
| MQT | 10.22 | -0.02 | -0.15% |
| Blackrock Muni Yield Quality Fund II | |||
| NVII | 27.64 | -0.91 | -3.19% |
| REX NVDA Growth & Income ETF | |||
CICOF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that CICOF and MPZZF have been poorly correlated (+24% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CICOF and MPZZF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CICOF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CICOF | 100% | N/A | ||
| MPZZF - CICOF | 24% Poorly correlated | -0.77% | ||
| AMKAF - CICOF | 22% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| DSX - CICOF | 21% Poorly correlated | -2.16% | ||
| KNOP - CICOF | 18% Poorly correlated | -0.28% | ||
| CICOY - CICOF | 18% Poorly correlated | -3.67% | ||
More | ||||
CMHHF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that CMHHF and HHULY have been poorly correlated (+20% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CMHHF and HHULY's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CMHHF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CMHHF | 100% | N/A | ||
| HHULY - CMHHF | 20% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CICOY - CMHHF | 11% Poorly correlated | -3.67% | ||
| CSPKY - CMHHF | 8% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| DLPTF - CMHHF | 6% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CICOF - CMHHF | 3% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||