Advertisement
CTTAF vs DNZOF
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 CTTAF is a Hold and DNZOF 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).
CTTAF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileDNZOF’s FA Score has 2 green FA rating(s).
- CTTAF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- DNZOF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
Price Growth
CTTAF (@Auto Parts: OEM) experienced а +1.64% price change this week, while DNZOF (@Auto Parts: OEM) price change was -5.95% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Auto Parts: OEM industry was +0.27%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +2.01%, and the average quarterly price growth was +6.90%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Auto Parts: OEM (+0.27% weekly)OEM or Original Equipment Manufacturer of auto parts refers to the original producer of a vehicles components, and so OEM car parts are usually identical to the parts used in producing the vehicle in the first place. OEM parts tend to fit the specifications of a particular model, and their compatibility is often guaranteed by the automaker itself. OEM parts could be more expensive to buy (compared to other vendors’ products) when a consumer goes for replacement. However, increased competition from aftermarket parts/third-party vendors could, in some cases, keep EOM prices in check. The industry might progress further in adopting newer technologies like 3D printing to boost supply chain performance and quality. Aptiv PLC, Magna International Inc. and BorgWarner Inc. are major OEMs for autos.
| CTTAF | DNZOF | CTTAF / DNZOF | |
| Capitalization | 16B | 52.6B | 30% |
| EBITDA | 4.19B | 835B | 1% |
| Gain YTD | 31.410 | -7.601 | -413% |
| P/E Ratio | 68.03 | 23.36 | 291% |
| Revenue | 40.4B | 6.4T | 1% |
| Total Cash | 2.38B | 768B | 0% |
| Total Debt | 8.01B | 889B | 1% |
CTTAF | DNZOF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 17 Undervalued | 21 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 90 | 62 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 72 | 1 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 41 | 60 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 64 | 91 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | n/a | 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.
CTTAF's Valuation (17) in the null industry is in the same range as DNZOF (21). This means that CTTAF’s stock grew similarly to DNZOF’s over the last 12 months.
DNZOF's Profit vs Risk Rating (62) in the null industry is in the same range as CTTAF (90). This means that DNZOF’s stock grew similarly to CTTAF’s over the last 12 months.
DNZOF's SMR Rating (1) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for CTTAF (72). This means that DNZOF’s stock grew significantly faster than CTTAF’s over the last 12 months.
CTTAF's Price Growth Rating (41) in the null industry is in the same range as DNZOF (60). This means that CTTAF’s stock grew similarly to DNZOF’s over the last 12 months.
CTTAF's P/E Growth Rating (64) in the null industry is in the same range as DNZOF (91). This means that CTTAF’s stock grew similarly to DNZOF’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 (%) |
Advertisement
CTTAF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, CTTAF has been loosely correlated with CTTAY. These tickers have moved in lockstep 61% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if CTTAF jumps, then CTTAY could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CTTAF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CTTAF | 100% | -2.38% | ||
| CTTAY - CTTAF | 61% Loosely correlated | -2.64% | ||
| VLEEY - CTTAF | 41% Loosely correlated | -2.85% | ||
| PASTF - CTTAF | 30% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| DNZOF - CTTAF | 29% Poorly correlated | -1.80% | ||
| MGDDY - CTTAF | 25% Poorly correlated | -1.96% | ||
More | ||||
DNZOF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that DNZOF and CTTAF have been poorly correlated (+27% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that DNZOF and CTTAF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To DNZOF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DNZOF | 100% | -1.80% | ||
| CTTAF - DNZOF | 27% Poorly correlated | -2.38% | ||
| DNZOY - DNZOF | 22% Poorly correlated | -0.60% | ||
| EXCOF - DNZOF | 7% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CMMCF - DNZOF | 6% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| BRDCY - DNZOF | 5% Poorly correlated | -0.96% | ||
More | ||||