Advertisement
CLVSF vs LUDG
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 CLVSF is a Hold and LUDG 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).
CLVSF’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whileLUDG’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- CLVSF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
- LUDG’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.
LUDG’s TA Score shows that 3 TA indicator(s) are bullish.
- LUDG’s TA Score: 3 bullish, 5 bearish.
Price Growth
CLVSF (@Medical/Nursing Services) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while LUDG (@Medical/Nursing Services) price change was +29.48% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Medical/Nursing Services industry was -0.02%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +4.22%, and the average quarterly price growth was +24.21%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Medical/Nursing Services (-0.02% 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.
| CLVSF | LUDG | CLVSF / LUDG | |
| Capitalization | 421M | 10.5M | 4,010% |
| EBITDA | 197M | -2.16M | -9,101% |
| Gain YTD | -25.576 | -55.760 | 46% |
| P/E Ratio | 31.15 | N/A | - |
| Revenue | 751M | 207 | 362,801,932% |
| Total Cash | 155M | 142K | 109,155% |
| Total Debt | 30.2M | 1.76M | 1,716% |
CLVSF | LUDG | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 70 Overvalued | 94 Overvalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 91 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 47 | 100 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 75 | 93 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 80 | 100 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 30 | 50 |
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.
CLVSF's Valuation (70) in the null industry is in the same range as LUDG (94). This means that CLVSF’s stock grew similarly to LUDG’s over the last 12 months.
LUDG's Profit vs Risk Rating (91) in the null industry is in the same range as CLVSF (100). This means that LUDG’s stock grew similarly to CLVSF’s over the last 12 months.
CLVSF's SMR Rating (47) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for LUDG (100). This means that CLVSF’s stock grew somewhat faster than LUDG’s over the last 12 months.
CLVSF's Price Growth Rating (75) in the null industry is in the same range as LUDG (93). This means that CLVSF’s stock grew similarly to LUDG’s over the last 12 months.
CLVSF's P/E Growth Rating (80) in the null industry is in the same range as LUDG (100). This means that CLVSF’s stock grew similarly to LUDG’s over the last 12 months.
| CLVSF | LUDG | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | N/A | 3 days ago 84% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | N/A | 3 days ago 66% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | N/A | 3 days ago 86% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | N/A | 3 days ago 90% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 11% | 3 days ago 70% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 11% | 3 days ago 86% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Declines ODDS (%) | N/A | 10 days ago 90% |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | N/A | 3 days ago 85% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | N/A | 3 days ago 90% |
Advertisement
CLVSF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that CLVSF and ALUR have been poorly correlated (+31% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CLVSF and ALUR's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CLVSF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CLVSF | 100% | N/A | ||
| ALUR - CLVSF | 31% Poorly correlated | +4.94% | ||
| PSNL - CLVSF | 23% Poorly correlated | +2.95% | ||
| IQV - CLVSF | 21% Poorly correlated | +1.96% | ||
| LUDG - CLVSF | 8% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| AVHHL - CLVSF | 1% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
LUDG and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that LUDG and MODD have been poorly correlated (+8% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that LUDG and MODD's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To LUDG | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LUDG | 100% | N/A | ||
| MODD - LUDG | 8% Poorly correlated | +1.12% | ||
| CLVSF - LUDG | 8% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| SOAGY - LUDG | 4% Poorly correlated | +3.02% | ||
| IZOZF - LUDG | 4% Poorly correlated | -1.25% | ||
| JNDOF - LUDG | 4% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||