CLLKF vs TPGVF
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 CLLKF is a Hold and TPGVF 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).
CLLKF’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whileTPGVF’s FA Score has 2 green FA rating(s).
- CLLKF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
- TPGVF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
Price Growth
CLLKF (@Medical Specialties) experienced а +0.15% price change this week, while TPGVF (@Medical Specialties) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Medical Specialties industry was -4.22%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +1.48%, and the average quarterly price growth was +1.33%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Medical Specialties (-4.22% weekly)Medical specialties are companies that make equipment used by the health care industry. Equipment manufactured and distributed by these companies include dialysis machines, blood analysis equipment, surgical equipment, dental instruments, and diagnostic tools, among other items. Large companies typically aim to produce and distribute high-quality products across a broad market spectrum. Smaller firms are more likely to specialize in a particular market segment. Due to the industry’s close association with medical treatments, they typically have low sensitivity to macroeconomic fluctuations. Within this industry, Abbott Laboratories, Medtronic Plc and Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. are some of the companies with multi-billion market capitalizations in the U.S. stock markets.
| CLLKF | TPGVF | CLLKF / TPGVF | |
| Capitalization | 275M | 1.65B | 17% |
| EBITDA | -402.4M | -122.26M | 329% |
| Gain YTD | -51.535 | 61.594 | -84% |
| P/E Ratio | 90.09 | 22.94 | 393% |
| Revenue | 2.26B | 2.77B | 82% |
| Total Cash | 860M | 988M | 87% |
| Total Debt | 1.87B | 654M | 287% |
CLLKF | TPGVF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 77 | 37 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 87 Overvalued | 8 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 94 | 92 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 85 | 36 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 90 | 2 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | n/a | 30 |
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.
TPGVF's Valuation (8) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for CLLKF (87). This means that TPGVF’s stock grew significantly faster than CLLKF’s over the last 12 months.
TPGVF's Profit vs Risk Rating (100) in the null industry is in the same range as CLLKF (100). This means that TPGVF’s stock grew similarly to CLLKF’s over the last 12 months.
TPGVF's SMR Rating (92) in the null industry is in the same range as CLLKF (94). This means that TPGVF’s stock grew similarly to CLLKF’s over the last 12 months.
TPGVF's Price Growth Rating (36) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CLLKF (85). This means that TPGVF’s stock grew somewhat faster than CLLKF’s over the last 12 months.
TPGVF's P/E Growth Rating (2) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for CLLKF (90). This means that TPGVF’s stock grew significantly faster than CLLKF’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 (%) |
CLLKF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that CLLKF and FONR have been poorly correlated (+29% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CLLKF and FONR's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CLLKF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CLLKF | 100% | -9.09% | ||
| FONR - CLLKF | 29% Poorly correlated | -2.86% | ||
| TPGVF - CLLKF | 20% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| LUNG - CLLKF | 10% Poorly correlated | -1.13% | ||
| SHC - CLLKF | 9% Poorly correlated | +0.69% | ||
| BDSX - CLLKF | 7% Poorly correlated | +1.46% | ||
More | ||||
TPGVF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that TPGVF and AMBFF have been poorly correlated (+22% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that TPGVF and AMBFF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To TPGVF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TPGVF | 100% | N/A | ||
| AMBFF - TPGVF | 22% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| MDXH - TPGVF | 21% Poorly correlated | -4.05% | ||
| BCCOY - TPGVF | 21% Poorly correlated | -19.04% | ||
| CLLKF - TPGVF | 20% Poorly correlated | -9.09% | ||
| TGLVY - TPGVF | 8% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||