CUYRF vs SGLFF
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 CUYRF is a Hold and SGLFF 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).
CUYRF’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whileSGLFF’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- CUYRF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
- SGLFF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
Price Growth
CUYRF (@Chemicals: Specialty) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while SGLFF (@Chemicals: Specialty) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Chemicals: Specialty industry was -2.75%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -5.12%, and the average quarterly price growth was -6.26%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Chemicals: Specialty (-2.75% weekly)The specialty chemicals sector includes companies that produce chemicals and industrial gases, which are of relatively high-value, often made to customer specifications. Examples of specialty chemicals are electronic chemicals, industrial gases, coatings, adhesives and sealants, industrial and institutional cleaning chemicals. The products are often valued on the basis of their purposes/performances rather than for their composition. Linde Plc, Ecolab Inc., Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., and Dow, Inc. are some of the largest companies making specialty chemicals.
| CUYRF | SGLFF | CUYRF / SGLFF | |
| Capitalization | 1.09B | 1.02B | 106% |
| EBITDA | 16.7B | 183M | 9,126% |
| Gain YTD | 43.693 | -22.855 | -191% |
| P/E Ratio | 10.83 | 8.42 | 129% |
| Revenue | 85.6B | 1.15B | 7,450% |
| Total Cash | 34.2B | 189M | 18,095% |
| Total Debt | 1.15B | 344M | 335% |
SGLFF | ||
|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 18 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 98 Overvalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 92 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 41 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 79 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 95 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 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.
| RSI ODDS (%) |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) |
| Momentum ODDS (%) |
| MACD ODDS (%) |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) |
| Advances ODDS (%) |
| Declines ODDS (%) |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) |
| Aroon ODDS (%) |
CUYRF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, CUYRF has been loosely correlated with SGLFF. These tickers have moved in lockstep 51% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if CUYRF jumps, then SGLFF could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CUYRF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CUYRF | 100% | N/A | ||
| SGLFF - CUYRF | 51% Loosely correlated | N/A | ||
| KDSKF - CUYRF | 35% Loosely correlated | N/A | ||
| HXPLF - CUYRF | 20% Poorly correlated | +0.80% | ||
| AZLGF - CUYRF | 2% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| PRM - CUYRF | 1% Poorly correlated | -1.06% | ||
More | ||||
SGLFF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, SGLFF has been loosely correlated with CUYRF. These tickers have moved in lockstep 51% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if SGLFF jumps, then CUYRF could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To SGLFF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SGLFF | 100% | N/A | ||
| CUYRF - SGLFF | 51% Loosely correlated | N/A | ||
| ICPVF - SGLFF | 24% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| KDSKF - SGLFF | 24% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| SHECY - SGLFF | 14% Poorly correlated | -1.36% | ||
| OCINF - SGLFF | 10% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||