CVALF vs GNMSF
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 CVALF is a Hold and GNMSF is a Sell.
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).
CVALF’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whileGNMSF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).
- CVALF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
- GNMSF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
Price Growth
CVALF (@Biotechnology) experienced а +8.96% price change this week, while GNMSF (@Biotechnology) price change was -4.62% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Biotechnology industry was -2.07%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +3.27%, and the average quarterly price growth was +5.23%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Biotechnology (-2.07% weekly)Biotechnology involves genetic or protein engineering to produce medicines/therapies for treating and preventing ailments. The industry also provides crucial ingredients for diagnostics. This multi-billion-dollar industry is heavily focused on research and development, as companies attempt to continually come up with cutting-edge solutions for health. New discoveries for the treatment of diseases provide opportunities for growth for a company in this industry. Discoveries, however, must pass the regulatory approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) before they can make it to markets. Amgen Inc., Gilead Sciences, Inc. and Celgene Corporation are examples of companies in this industry.
| CVALF | GNMSF | CVALF / GNMSF | |
| Capitalization | 74.6M | 14B | 1% |
| EBITDA | N/A | N/A | - |
| Gain YTD | 249.870 | -30.155 | -829% |
| P/E Ratio | N/A | 21.42 | - |
| Revenue | N/A | N/A | - |
| Total Cash | N/A | N/A | - |
| Total Debt | N/A | N/A | - |
CVALF | GNMSF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 11 | 5 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 77 Overvalued | 67 Overvalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 49 | 86 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 95 | 12 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 35 | 83 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 99 | 88 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 50 | 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.
GNMSF's Valuation (67) in the null industry is in the same range as CVALF (77). This means that GNMSF’s stock grew similarly to CVALF’s over the last 12 months.
CVALF's Profit vs Risk Rating (49) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for GNMSF (86). This means that CVALF’s stock grew somewhat faster than GNMSF’s over the last 12 months.
GNMSF's SMR Rating (12) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for CVALF (95). This means that GNMSF’s stock grew significantly faster than CVALF’s over the last 12 months.
CVALF's Price Growth Rating (35) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for GNMSF (83). This means that CVALF’s stock grew somewhat faster than GNMSF’s over the last 12 months.
GNMSF's P/E Growth Rating (88) in the null industry is in the same range as CVALF (99). This means that GNMSF’s stock grew similarly to CVALF’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 (%) |
CVALF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that CVALF and ARGNF have been poorly correlated (+22% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CVALF and ARGNF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CVALF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVALF | 100% | +5.42% | ||
| ARGNF - CVALF | 22% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CYDY - CVALF | 10% Poorly correlated | -2.92% | ||
| GNMSF - CVALF | 9% Poorly correlated | +2.23% | ||
| FAMDF - CVALF | 6% Poorly correlated | -18.52% | ||
| CYYNF - CVALF | 6% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
GNMSF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that GNMSF and SLN have been poorly correlated (+24% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that GNMSF and SLN's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To GNMSF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GNMSF | 100% | +2.23% | ||
| SLN - GNMSF | 24% Poorly correlated | -8.27% | ||
| ABOS - GNMSF | 20% Poorly correlated | +3.16% | ||
| CYDY - GNMSF | 14% Poorly correlated | -2.92% | ||
| CVALF - GNMSF | 9% Poorly correlated | +5.42% | ||
| CMVLF - GNMSF | 7% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||