CIIHF
Price
$3.65
Change
-$0.44 (-10.76%)
Updated
Sep 3 closing price
Capitalization
58.24B
CMSQF
Price
$24.19
Change
+$1.63 (+7.23%)
Updated
Sep 26 closing price
Capitalization
13.43B
Interact to see
Advertisement

CIIHF vs CMSQF

Header iconCIIHF vs CMSQF Comparison
Open Charts CIIHF vs CMSQFBanner chart's image
Citic Securities
Price$3.65
Change-$0.44 (-10.76%)
Volume$250
Capitalization58.24B
Computershare
Price$24.19
Change+$1.63 (+7.23%)
Volume$1.92K
Capitalization13.43B
CIIHF vs CMSQF Comparison Chart in %
Loading...
CIIHF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
CMSQF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
CIIHF vs. CMSQF commentary
Sep 28, 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 CIIHF is a Buy and CMSQF is a StrongBuy.

Interact to see
Advertisement
COMPARISON
Comparison
Sep 28, 2025
Stock price -- (CIIHF: $3.65 vs. CMSQF: $24.19)
Brand notoriety: CIIHF and CMSQF are both not notable
Both companies represent the Investment Banks/Brokers industry
Current volume relative to the 65-day Moving Average: CIIHF: 43% vs. CMSQF: 10%
Market capitalization -- CIIHF: $58.24B vs. CMSQF: $13.43B
CIIHF [@Investment Banks/Brokers] is valued at $58.24B. CMSQF’s [@Investment Banks/Brokers] market capitalization is $13.43B. The market cap for tickers in the [@Investment Banks/Brokers] industry ranges from $928.5B to $0. The average market capitalization across the [@Investment Banks/Brokers] industry is $10.53B.

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).

CIIHF’s FA Score shows that 3 FA rating(s) are green whileCMSQF’s FA Score has 2 green FA rating(s).

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

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.

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

  • CIIHF’s TA Score: 3 bullish, 2 bearish.
  • CMSQF’s TA Score: 4 bullish, 4 bearish.
According to our system of comparison, both CIIHF and CMSQF are a good buy in the short-term.

Price Growth

CIIHF (@Investment Banks/Brokers) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while CMSQF (@Investment Banks/Brokers) price change was -7.28% for the same time period.

The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Investment Banks/Brokers industry was -0.96%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +11.97%, and the average quarterly price growth was +64.54%.

Industries' Descriptions

@Investment Banks/Brokers (-0.96% weekly)

These banks specialize in underwriting (helping companies with debt financing or equity issuances), IPOs, facilitating mergers and other corporate reorganizations and acting as a broker or financial advisor for institutions. They might also trade securities on their own accounts. Investment banks potentially thrive on expanding its network of clients, since that could help them increase profits. Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and CME Group Inc are some of the largest investment banking companies.

SUMMARIES
Loading...
FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
CIIHF($58.2B) has a higher market cap than CMSQF($13.4B). CMSQF has higher P/E ratio than CIIHF: CMSQF (23.52) vs CIIHF (16.17). CIIHF YTD gains are higher at: 36.843 vs. CMSQF (28.329). CMSQF has less debt than CIIHF: CMSQF (1.92B) vs CIIHF (218B). CIIHF has higher revenues than CMSQF: CIIHF (69.2B) vs CMSQF (3.12B).
CIIHFCMSQFCIIHF / CMSQF
Capitalization58.2B13.4B434%
EBITDAN/A1.07B-
Gain YTD36.84328.329130%
P/E Ratio16.1723.5269%
Revenue69.2B3.12B2,222%
Total CashN/A1.38B-
Total Debt218B1.92B11,348%
FUNDAMENTALS RATINGS
CIIHF vs CMSQF: Fundamental Ratings
CIIHF
CMSQF
OUTLOOK RATING
1..100
5050
VALUATION
overvalued / fair valued / undervalued
1..100
26
Undervalued
23
Undervalued
PROFIT vs RISK RATING
1..100
3510
SMR RATING
1..100
3352
PRICE GROWTH RATING
1..100
4056
P/E GROWTH RATING
1..100
835
SEASONALITY SCORE
1..100
n/a50

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.

CMSQF's Valuation (23) in the null industry is in the same range as CIIHF (26). This means that CMSQF’s stock grew similarly to CIIHF’s over the last 12 months.

CMSQF's Profit vs Risk Rating (10) in the null industry is in the same range as CIIHF (35). This means that CMSQF’s stock grew similarly to CIIHF’s over the last 12 months.

CIIHF's SMR Rating (33) in the null industry is in the same range as CMSQF (52). This means that CIIHF’s stock grew similarly to CMSQF’s over the last 12 months.

CIIHF's Price Growth Rating (40) in the null industry is in the same range as CMSQF (56). This means that CIIHF’s stock grew similarly to CMSQF’s over the last 12 months.

CIIHF's P/E Growth Rating (8) in the null industry is in the same range as CMSQF (35). This means that CIIHF’s stock grew similarly to CMSQF’s over the last 12 months.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
CIIHFCMSQF
RSI
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
55%
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
21%
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
46%
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
32%
Momentum
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
33%
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
16%
MACD
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
38%
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
22%
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
30%
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
15%
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
40%
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
18%
Advances
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bullish Trend 13 days ago
33%
Declines
ODDS (%)
N/A
N/A
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
44%
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
21%
Aroon
ODDS (%)
N/A
N/A
View a ticker or compare two or three
Interact to see
Advertisement
CIIHF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
CMSQF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
Interesting Tickers
1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
1 Day
STOCK / NAMEPrice $Chg $Chg %
SYM52.140.59
+1.14%
Symbotic
FATBB2.540.03
+1.06%
FAT Brands
SO94.530.84
+0.90%
Southern Company (The)
LMNR15.100.12
+0.80%
Limoneira Co
TFIN51.38-0.44
-0.85%
Triumph Financial Inc

CIIHF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that CIIHF and GS have been poorly correlated (+25% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CIIHF and GS's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To CIIHF
1D Price
Change %
CIIHF100%
N/A
GS - CIIHF
25%
Poorly correlated
+0.98%
HAFG - CIIHF
25%
Poorly correlated
N/A
MCO - CIIHF
23%
Poorly correlated
+0.86%
PIPR - CIIHF
22%
Poorly correlated
+0.88%
MS - CIIHF
21%
Poorly correlated
+0.73%
More

CMSQF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that CMSQF and CURN have been poorly correlated (+11% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CMSQF and CURN's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To CMSQF
1D Price
Change %
CMSQF100%
+7.23%
CURN - CMSQF
11%
Poorly correlated
+2.97%
CIIHY - CMSQF
2%
Poorly correlated
+2.91%
CMSQY - CMSQF
2%
Poorly correlated
-1.48%
DBOEF - CMSQF
1%
Poorly correlated
+1.31%
CIIHF - CMSQF
0%
Poorly correlated
N/A
More