CTTAF
Price
$89.96
Change
+$0.26 (+0.29%)
Updated
Jul 3 closing price
Capitalization
16.01B
MGDDY
Price
$18.61
Change
-$0.12 (-0.64%)
Updated
Jul 3 closing price
Capitalization
23.43B
17 days until earnings call
Interact to see
Advertisement

CTTAF vs MGDDY

Header iconCTTAF vs MGDDY Comparison
Open Charts CTTAF vs MGDDYBanner chart's image
Continental AG
Price$89.96
Change+$0.26 (+0.29%)
Volume$65
Capitalization16.01B
CIE GENERALE DES ETABLISSEMENTS MICHELIN SA CLERMONT-FERRAND
Price$18.61
Change-$0.12 (-0.64%)
Volume$50.58K
Capitalization23.43B
CTTAF vs MGDDY Comparison Chart in %
Loading...
CTTAF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
MGDDY
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
CTTAF vs. MGDDY commentary
Jul 07, 2025

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 MGDDY is a Hold.

Interact to see
Advertisement
COMPARISON
Comparison
Jul 07, 2025
Stock price -- (CTTAF: $89.96 vs. MGDDY: $18.61)
Brand notoriety: CTTAF and MGDDY are both not notable
Both companies represent the Auto Parts: OEM industry
Current volume relative to the 65-day Moving Average: CTTAF: 17% vs. MGDDY: 24%
Market capitalization -- CTTAF: $16.01B vs. MGDDY: $23.43B
CTTAF [@Auto Parts: OEM] is valued at $16.01B. MGDDY’s [@Auto Parts: OEM] market capitalization is $23.43B. The market cap for tickers in the [@Auto Parts: OEM] industry ranges from $52.56B to $0. The average market capitalization across the [@Auto Parts: OEM] industry is $5.73B.

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 whileMGDDY’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).

  • CTTAF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
  • MGDDY’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
According to our system of comparison, MGDDY is a better buy in the long-term than CTTAF.

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.

CTTAF’s TA Score shows that 6 TA indicator(s) are bullish while MGDDY’s TA Score has 3 bullish TA indicator(s).

  • CTTAF’s TA Score: 6 bullish, 2 bearish.
  • MGDDY’s TA Score: 3 bullish, 5 bearish.
According to our system of comparison, CTTAF is a better buy in the short-term than MGDDY.

Price Growth

CTTAF (@Auto Parts: OEM) experienced а +9.81% price change this week, while MGDDY (@Auto Parts: OEM) price change was +2.48% for the same time period.

The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Auto Parts: OEM industry was +3.35%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +7.14%, and the average quarterly price growth was +11.37%.

Reported Earning Dates

MGDDY is expected to report earnings on Jul 24, 2025.

Industries' Descriptions

@Auto Parts: OEM (+3.35% 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.

SUMMARIES
Loading...
FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
MGDDY($23.4B) has a higher market cap than CTTAF($16B). CTTAF has higher P/E ratio than MGDDY: CTTAF (68.03) vs MGDDY (8.90). CTTAF YTD gains are higher at: 31.758 vs. MGDDY (23.208). MGDDY has higher annual earnings (EBITDA): 5.41B vs. CTTAF (4.19B). MGDDY has more cash in the bank: 3.42B vs. CTTAF (2.38B). MGDDY (7.95B) and CTTAF (8.01B) have identical debt. CTTAF has higher revenues than MGDDY: CTTAF (40.4B) vs MGDDY (29.4B).
CTTAFMGDDYCTTAF / MGDDY
Capitalization16B23.4B68%
EBITDA4.19B5.41B77%
Gain YTD31.75823.208137%
P/E Ratio68.038.90765%
Revenue40.4B29.4B137%
Total Cash2.38B3.42B70%
Total Debt8.01B7.95B101%
FUNDAMENTALS RATINGS
CTTAF vs MGDDY: Fundamental Ratings
CTTAF
MGDDY
OUTLOOK RATING
1..100
5050
VALUATION
overvalued / fair valued / undervalued
1..100
16
Undervalued
10
Undervalued
PROFIT vs RISK RATING
1..100
10046
SMR RATING
1..100
7297
PRICE GROWTH RATING
1..100
4049
P/E GROWTH RATING
1..100
6964
SEASONALITY SCORE
1..100
n/a50

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.

MGDDY's Valuation (10) in the null industry is in the same range as CTTAF (16). This means that MGDDY’s stock grew similarly to CTTAF’s over the last 12 months.

MGDDY's Profit vs Risk Rating (46) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CTTAF (100). This means that MGDDY’s stock grew somewhat faster than CTTAF’s over the last 12 months.

CTTAF's SMR Rating (72) in the null industry is in the same range as MGDDY (97). This means that CTTAF’s stock grew similarly to MGDDY’s over the last 12 months.

CTTAF's Price Growth Rating (40) in the null industry is in the same range as MGDDY (49). This means that CTTAF’s stock grew similarly to MGDDY’s over the last 12 months.

MGDDY's P/E Growth Rating (64) in the null industry is in the same range as CTTAF (69). This means that MGDDY’s stock grew similarly to CTTAF’s over the last 12 months.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
CTTAFMGDDY
RSI
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bearish Trend 5 days ago
65%
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
68%
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
45%
Momentum
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
71%
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
62%
MACD
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
55%
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
33%
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
70%
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
61%
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
74%
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
47%
Advances
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
67%
Bullish Trend 7 days ago
64%
Declines
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 11 days ago
65%
Bearish Trend 17 days ago
52%
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
73%
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
67%
Aroon
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
72%
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
43%
View a ticker or compare two or three
Interact to see
Advertisement
CTTAF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
MGDDY
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
Interesting Tickers
1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
1 Day
STOCK / NAMEPrice $Chg $Chg %
AES11.520.39
+3.50%
AES Corp
PRVA22.110.19
+0.87%
Privia Health Group
ZJYL0.64N/A
-0.06%
JIN MEDICAL INTERNATIONAL Ltd
UBX0.29-0.01
-1.71%
Unity Biotechnology
BMEA1.66-0.06
-3.49%
Biomea Fusion

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.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To CTTAF
1D Price
Change %
CTTAF100%
+0.30%
CTTAY - CTTAF
61%
Loosely correlated
+0.54%
VLEEY - CTTAF
41%
Loosely correlated
-3.42%
PASTF - CTTAF
30%
Poorly correlated
N/A
DNZOF - CTTAF
29%
Poorly correlated
-4.79%
MGDDY - CTTAF
25%
Poorly correlated
-0.64%
More

MGDDY and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, MGDDY has been loosely correlated with VLEEY. These tickers have moved in lockstep 44% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if MGDDY jumps, then VLEEY could also see price increases.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To MGDDY
1D Price
Change %
MGDDY100%
-0.64%
VLEEY - MGDDY
44%
Loosely correlated
-3.42%
CTTAY - MGDDY
44%
Loosely correlated
+0.54%
BRDCY - MGDDY
35%
Loosely correlated
+0.48%
NKRKY - MGDDY
32%
Poorly correlated
N/A
KNRRY - MGDDY
32%
Poorly correlated
-2.09%
More