Advertisement
CICOF vs MPZZF
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 MPZZF 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 2 FA rating(s) are green whileMPZZF’s FA Score has 2 green FA rating(s).
- CICOF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
- MPZZF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
Price Growth
CICOF (@Marine Shipping) experienced а +0.24% price change this week, while MPZZF (@Marine Shipping) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Marine Shipping industry was +2.08%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +5.34%, and the average quarterly price growth was +6.66%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Marine Shipping (+2.08% 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 | MPZZF | CICOF / MPZZF | |
| Capitalization | 33.4B | 746M | 4,477% |
| EBITDA | N/A | 336M | - |
| Gain YTD | 2.073 | -4.604 | -45% |
| P/E Ratio | 3.90 | 2.98 | 131% |
| Revenue | N/A | 520M | - |
| Total Cash | N/A | 220M | - |
| Total Debt | N/A | 433M | - |
CICOF | MPZZF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 83 | 12 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 5 Undervalued | 2 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 37 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 20 | 31 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 53 | 50 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 96 | 60 | |
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.
MPZZF's Valuation (2) in the null industry is in the same range as CICOF (5). This means that MPZZF’s stock grew similarly to CICOF’s over the last 12 months.
CICOF's Profit vs Risk Rating (37) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for MPZZF (100). This means that CICOF’s stock grew somewhat faster than MPZZF’s over the last 12 months.
CICOF's SMR Rating (20) in the null industry is in the same range as MPZZF (31). This means that CICOF’s stock grew similarly to MPZZF’s over the last 12 months.
MPZZF's Price Growth Rating (50) in the null industry is in the same range as CICOF (53). This means that MPZZF’s stock grew similarly to CICOF’s over the last 12 months.
MPZZF's P/E Growth Rating (60) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CICOF (96). This means that MPZZF’s stock grew somewhat faster than CICOF’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 (%) |
Advertisement
CICOF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that CICOF and AMKAF have been poorly correlated (+22% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CICOF and AMKAF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CICOF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CICOF | 100% | N/A | ||
| AMKAF - CICOF | 22% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| MPZZF - CICOF | 20% Poorly correlated | -1.76% | ||
| AMKBY - CICOF | 12% Poorly correlated | -2.17% | ||
| BWLP - CICOF | 11% Poorly correlated | -0.83% | ||
| CICOY - CICOF | 3% Poorly correlated | -2.56% | ||
More | ||||
MPZZF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, MPZZF has been loosely correlated with AMKBY. These tickers have moved in lockstep 35% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if MPZZF jumps, then AMKBY could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To MPZZF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MPZZF | 100% | -1.76% | ||
| AMKBY - MPZZF | 35% Loosely correlated | -2.17% | ||
| HLAGF - MPZZF | 35% Loosely correlated | -0.17% | ||
| NPNYY - MPZZF | 34% Loosely correlated | -0.28% | ||
| MSLOY - MPZZF | 27% Poorly correlated | +0.99% | ||
| AMKAF - MPZZF | 26% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||