Advertisement
CLPBF vs CZMWF
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 CLPBF is a Hold and CZMWF is a StrongBuy.
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).
CLPBF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileCZMWF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).
- CLPBF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- CZMWF’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.
CLPBF’s TA Score shows that 5 TA indicator(s) are bullish while CZMWF’s TA Score has 4 bullish TA indicator(s).
- CLPBF’s TA Score: 5 bullish, 4 bearish.
- CZMWF’s TA Score: 4 bullish, 3 bearish.
Price Growth
CLPBF (@Pharmaceuticals: Other) experienced а +0.21% price change this week, while CZMWF (@Pharmaceuticals: Other) price change was +1.81% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Pharmaceuticals: Other industry was -1.39%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +7.03%, and the average quarterly price growth was +18.51%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Pharmaceuticals: Other (-1.39% 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.
| CLPBF | CZMWF | CLPBF / CZMWF | |
| Capitalization | 21.7B | 4.26B | 509% |
| EBITDA | 8.66B | 226M | 3,830% |
| Gain YTD | -10.603 | 5.031 | -211% |
| P/E Ratio | 34.26 | 25.34 | 135% |
| Revenue | 27.8B | 2.18B | 1,275% |
| Total Cash | 729M | 51.5M | 1,416% |
| Total Debt | 24.3B | 147M | 16,531% |
CLPBF | CZMWF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 87 | 11 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 18 Undervalued | 31 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 35 | 78 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 60 | 84 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 70 | 62 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 90 | 46 |
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.
CLPBF's Valuation (18) in the null industry is in the same range as CZMWF (31). This means that CLPBF’s stock grew similarly to CZMWF’s over the last 12 months.
CLPBF's Profit vs Risk Rating (100) in the null industry is in the same range as CZMWF (100). This means that CLPBF’s stock grew similarly to CZMWF’s over the last 12 months.
CLPBF's SMR Rating (35) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CZMWF (78). This means that CLPBF’s stock grew somewhat faster than CZMWF’s over the last 12 months.
CLPBF's Price Growth Rating (60) in the null industry is in the same range as CZMWF (84). This means that CLPBF’s stock grew similarly to CZMWF’s over the last 12 months.
CZMWF's P/E Growth Rating (62) in the null industry is in the same range as CLPBF (70). This means that CZMWF’s stock grew similarly to CLPBF’s over the last 12 months.
| CLPBF | CZMWF | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 58% | 2 days ago 59% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 52% | 2 days ago 56% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 57% | 2 days ago 51% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 58% | 2 days ago 42% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 54% | 2 days ago 45% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 53% | 2 days ago 59% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | 8 days ago 50% | N/A |
| Declines ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 60% | 2 days ago 58% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 46% | 2 days ago 56% |
Advertisement
CLPBF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that CLPBF and BLCO have been poorly correlated (+22% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CLPBF and BLCO's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CLPBF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CLPBF | 100% | N/A | ||
| BLCO - CLPBF | 22% Poorly correlated | -0.27% | ||
| CLPBY - CLPBF | 21% Poorly correlated | -0.92% | ||
| CZMWF - CLPBF | 13% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CZMWY - CLPBF | 10% Poorly correlated | -1.32% | ||
| BRSYF - CLPBF | 7% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
CZMWF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, CZMWF has been loosely correlated with CZMWY. These tickers have moved in lockstep 46% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if CZMWF jumps, then CZMWY could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CZMWF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CZMWF | 100% | N/A | ||
| CZMWY - CZMWF | 46% Loosely correlated | -1.32% | ||
| XAIR - CZMWF | 31% Poorly correlated | -6.06% | ||
| SHWGY - CZMWF | 26% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| ECIA - CZMWF | 23% Poorly correlated | +11.43% | ||
| IRME - CZMWF | 21% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||