CSASF vs ECNCF
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 CSASF is a Hold and ECNCF 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).
CSASF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileECNCF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).
- CSASF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- ECNCF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
Price Growth
CSASF (@Finance/Rental/Leasing) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while ECNCF (@Finance/Rental/Leasing) price change was +25.15% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Finance/Rental/Leasing industry was +0.36%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +5.33%, and the average quarterly price growth was +20.26%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Finance/Rental/Leasing (+0.36% weekly)A leasing company (e.g. United Rentals, Inc. ) is typically the legal owner of the asset for the duration of the lease, while the lessee has operating control over the asset while also having some share of the economic risks and returns from the change in the valuation of the underlying asset. Per capita disposable income and corporate earnings or cash flow could be some of the critical metrics for this business – the higher the values of these metrics, the potentially greater ability of consumers/businesses to afford apartments/office spaces for rent. Other finance companies include credit/debit card payment processing companies (e.g. Visa Inc. and Mastercard), private label credit cards providers (e.g. Synchrony Financial) and automobile finance companies (e.g. Credit Acceptance Corporation).
| CSASF | ECNCF | CSASF / ECNCF | |
| Capitalization | 2.52B | 486M | 519% |
| EBITDA | 108B | 30.7M | 351,792% |
| Gain YTD | 25.886 | -8.626 | -300% |
| P/E Ratio | 6.34 | 212.77 | 3% |
| Revenue | 383B | 208M | 184,135% |
| Total Cash | 160B | 22.5M | 711,111% |
| Total Debt | 2.81T | 1.05B | 267,395% |
CSASF | ECNCF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 40 | 86 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 22 Undervalued | 96 Overvalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 36 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 77 | 92 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 52 | 37 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 58 | 6 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 50 | 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.
CSASF's Valuation (22) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for ECNCF (96). This means that CSASF’s stock grew significantly faster than ECNCF’s over the last 12 months.
CSASF's Profit vs Risk Rating (36) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for ECNCF (100). This means that CSASF’s stock grew somewhat faster than ECNCF’s over the last 12 months.
CSASF's SMR Rating (77) in the null industry is in the same range as ECNCF (92). This means that CSASF’s stock grew similarly to ECNCF’s over the last 12 months.
ECNCF's Price Growth Rating (37) in the null industry is in the same range as CSASF (52). This means that ECNCF’s stock grew similarly to CSASF’s over the last 12 months.
ECNCF's P/E Growth Rating (6) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CSASF (58). This means that ECNCF’s stock grew somewhat faster than CSASF’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 (%) |
CSASF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that CSASF and ELEEF have been poorly correlated (+25% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CSASF and ELEEF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CSASF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CSASF | 100% | N/A | ||
| ELEEF - CSASF | 25% Poorly correlated | -4.90% | ||
| ECNCF - CSASF | 2% Poorly correlated | -1.00% | ||
| DWIS - CSASF | 1% Poorly correlated | +23.96% | ||
| EDNMY - CSASF | 1% Poorly correlated | +5.00% | ||
| EDNMF - CSASF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
ECNCF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that ECNCF and HRI have been poorly correlated (+21% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that ECNCF and HRI's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To ECNCF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ECNCF | 100% | -1.00% | ||
| HRI - ECNCF | 21% Poorly correlated | -2.08% | ||
| EHMEF - ECNCF | 10% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| EDNMF - ECNCF | 9% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| ELEEF - ECNCF | 5% Poorly correlated | -4.90% | ||
| DWIS - ECNCF | 3% Poorly correlated | +23.96% | ||
More | ||||