Advertisement
CLPHF vs TNABY
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 CLPHF is a Hold and TNABY 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).
CLPHF’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whileTNABY’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- CLPHF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
- TNABY’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 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.
CLPHF’s TA Score shows that 3 TA indicator(s) are bullish while TNABY’s TA Score has 2 bullish TA indicator(s).
- CLPHF’s TA Score: 3 bullish, 3 bearish.
- TNABY’s TA Score: 2 bullish, 5 bearish.
Price Growth
CLPHF (@Electric Utilities) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while TNABY (@Electric Utilities) price change was -10.73% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Electric Utilities industry was -0.78%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -1.20%, and the average quarterly price growth was +6.80%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Electric Utilities (-0.78% weekly)Electric utilities companies generate, transmit and distribute electricity to businesses/offices and residences. Companies may be owned by the government or investors or public shareholders, or a combination thereof. The industry also includes firms that buy and sell electricity. Companies in this industry typically require significant investments in infrastructure. Many firms in this industry pay substantial and regular dividends to shareholders. However, changes in interest rates (and their impact on debt burdens), natural disasters and changing commodity prices could be factors affecting energy utilities’ profit margins. NextEra Energy, Inc., Duke Energy Corporation, Dominion Energy Inc. and Southern Company are among U.S. electric utilities companies with the largest market capitalizations.
| CLPHF | TNABY | CLPHF / TNABY | |
| Capitalization | 20.9B | 18.4B | 114% |
| EBITDA | 26.4B | 10.3B | 256% |
| Gain YTD | 5.625 | -18.211 | -31% |
| P/E Ratio | 14.58 | 17.47 | 84% |
| Revenue | 89.7B | 61.6B | 146% |
| Total Cash | 3.02B | 20.5B | 15% |
| Total Debt | 65.6B | 89B | 74% |
CLPHF | TNABY | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 95 Overvalued | 48 Fair valued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 46 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 100 | 100 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 54 | 63 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 89 | 91 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 75 | 75 |
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.
TNABY's Valuation (48) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CLPHF (95). This means that TNABY’s stock grew somewhat faster than CLPHF’s over the last 12 months.
TNABY's Profit vs Risk Rating (46) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CLPHF (100). This means that TNABY’s stock grew somewhat faster than CLPHF’s over the last 12 months.
TNABY's SMR Rating (100) in the null industry is in the same range as CLPHF (100). This means that TNABY’s stock grew similarly to CLPHF’s over the last 12 months.
CLPHF's Price Growth Rating (54) in the null industry is in the same range as TNABY (63). This means that CLPHF’s stock grew similarly to TNABY’s over the last 12 months.
CLPHF's P/E Growth Rating (89) in the null industry is in the same range as TNABY (91). This means that CLPHF’s stock grew similarly to TNABY’s over the last 12 months.
| CLPHF | TNABY | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 39% | 4 days ago 87% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 48% | 4 days ago 49% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | N/A | 4 days ago 47% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 7 days ago 34% | 4 days ago 52% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 35% | 4 days ago 48% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 34% | 4 days ago 51% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Declines ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | N/A | 4 days ago 86% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 26% | N/A |
Advertisement
CLPHF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that CLPHF and ABOIF have been poorly correlated (+22% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CLPHF and ABOIF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CLPHF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CLPHF | 100% | N/A | ||
| ABOIF - CLPHF | 22% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| TNABY - CLPHF | 20% Poorly correlated | -17.02% | ||
| CKISY - CLPHF | 13% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CLPHY - CLPHF | 11% Poorly correlated | +0.49% | ||
| CKISF - CLPHF | -0% Poorly correlated | N/A |
TNABY and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that TNABY and CLPHF have been poorly correlated (+20% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that TNABY and CLPHF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To TNABY | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TNABY | 100% | -17.02% | ||
| CLPHF - TNABY | 20% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| TNABF - TNABY | 8% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| TEZNY - TNABY | 7% Poorly correlated | +1.33% | ||
| ABOIF - TNABY | -1% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| MNTK - TNABY | -5% Poorly correlated | +0.49% |