Advertisement
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 1 green FA rating(s).
- CLLKF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
- TPGVF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 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.
CLLKF’s TA Score shows that 1 TA indicator(s) are bullish while TPGVF’s TA Score has 2 bullish TA indicator(s).
- CLLKF’s TA Score: 1 bullish, 4 bearish.
- TPGVF’s TA Score: 2 bullish, 4 bearish.
Price Growth
CLLKF (@Medical/Nursing Services) experienced а -18.59% price change this week, while TPGVF (@Pharmaceuticals: Other) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Medical/Nursing Services industry was -1.97%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +2.80%, and the average quarterly price growth was +8.73%.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Pharmaceuticals: Other industry was -1.13%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -3.06%, and the average quarterly price growth was +8.48%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Medical/Nursing Services (-1.97% weekly)The medical/nursing services includes companies that provide medical-related services such as ambulance services, dialysis centers, respiratory therapy, blood testing and rehabilitation services. DaVita Inc., Chemed Corporation and Guardant Health, Inc. are examples of companies in this industry.
@Pharmaceuticals: Other (-1.13% weekly)Pharmaceuticals (Other) comprise companies that are involved in the discovery, development or manufacturing of therapeutic and preventative medicines. They often collaborate with or acquire other pharmaceutical/healthcare firms. Examples of companies in this segment include Bausch Health Companies Inc., Icon Plc and Perrigo Company Plc.
| CLLKF | TPGVF | CLLKF / TPGVF | |
| Capitalization | 154M | 1.11B | 14% |
| EBITDA | 226M | 426M | 53% |
| Gain YTD | -25.714 | -56.589 | 45% |
| P/E Ratio | N/A | 70.73 | - |
| Revenue | 1.76B | 3.43B | 51% |
| Total Cash | 548M | 528M | 104% |
| Total Debt | 1.41B | 1.01B | 139% |
CLLKF | TPGVF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 88 Overvalued | 24 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 95 | 91 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 96 | 90 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 84 | 77 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 50 | 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.
TPGVF's Valuation (24) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CLLKF (88). This means that TPGVF’s stock grew somewhat 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 (91) in the null industry is in the same range as CLLKF (95). This means that TPGVF’s stock grew similarly to CLLKF’s over the last 12 months.
TPGVF's Price Growth Rating (90) in the null industry is in the same range as CLLKF (96). This means that TPGVF’s stock grew similarly to CLLKF’s over the last 12 months.
TPGVF's P/E Growth Rating (77) in the null industry is in the same range as CLLKF (84). This means that TPGVF’s stock grew similarly to CLLKF’s over the last 12 months.
| CLLKF | TPGVF | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 64% | 3 days ago 77% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 53% | 3 days ago 72% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 72% | 3 days ago 46% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 73% | 3 days ago 69% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Declines ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 74% | 3 days ago 62% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 81% | 6 days ago 36% |
Advertisement
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% | -9.31% | ||
| FONR - CLLKF | 29% Poorly correlated | +0.92% | ||
| TPGVF - CLLKF | 20% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| LUNG - CLLKF | 10% Poorly correlated | +1.75% | ||
| SHC - CLLKF | 9% Poorly correlated | +1.74% | ||
| BDSX - CLLKF | 7% Poorly correlated | -3.19% | ||
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 | +7.67% | ||
| BCCOY - TPGVF | 21% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CLLKF - TPGVF | 20% Poorly correlated | -9.31% | ||
| TGLVY - TPGVF | 8% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||