CITZ vs GBFH
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 CITZ is a Hold and GBFH 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).
CITZ’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileGBFH’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- CITZ’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- GBFH’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
Price Growth
CITZ (@Regional Banks) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while GBFH (@Regional Banks) price change was -0.24% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Regional Banks industry was +0.80%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +4.68%, and the average quarterly price growth was +18.06%.
Reported Earning Dates
GBFH is expected to report earnings on Jan 17, 2025.
Industries' Descriptions
@Regional Banks (+0.80% weekly)Regional banks have a smaller reach than major banks, and cater mostly to one region of a country, such as a state or within a group of states. They offer services often similar – albeit with some limitations/smaller scale – compared to major banks. Taking deposits, making loans, mortgages, leases, credit cards , fund management, insurance and investment banking. SunTrust Banks, State Street Corp., M&T Bank Corp. are some examples of U.S. regional banks.
| CITZ | GBFH | CITZ / GBFH | |
| Capitalization | 25.6M | 159M | 16% |
| EBITDA | N/A | N/A | - |
| Gain YTD | 8.922 | 105.832 | 8% |
| P/E Ratio | N/A | 14.20 | - |
| Revenue | 16.5M | 45.4M | 36% |
| Total Cash | N/A | N/A | - |
| Total Debt | 5.22M | 26M | 20% |
| RSI ODDS (%) |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) |
| Momentum ODDS (%) |
| MACD ODDS (%) |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) |
| Advances ODDS (%) |
| Declines ODDS (%) |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) |
| Aroon ODDS (%) |
CITZ and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, CITZ has been loosely correlated with MLYNF. These tickers have moved in lockstep 38% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if CITZ jumps, then MLYNF could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CITZ | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CITZ | 100% | N/A | ||
| MLYNF - CITZ | 38% Loosely correlated | N/A | ||
| NEFB - CITZ | 25% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| SBNY - CITZ | 22% Poorly correlated | -5.88% | ||
| GWBK - CITZ | 14% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| WOBK - CITZ | 7% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
GBFH and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that GBFH and LKSB have been poorly correlated (+12% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that GBFH and LKSB's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To GBFH | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GBFH | 100% | +0.31% | ||
| LKSB - GBFH | 12% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| STBK - GBFH | 7% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| FGFI - GBFH | 5% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CDAB - GBFH | 3% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CITZ - GBFH | 1% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||