Advertisement
CWLPF vs FLNCF
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 CWLPF is a Hold and FLNCF 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).
CWLPF’s FA Score shows that 2 FA rating(s) are green whileFLNCF’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- CWLPF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
- FLNCF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
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.
CWLPF’s TA Score shows that 5 TA indicator(s) are bullish while FLNCF’s TA Score has 3 bullish TA indicator(s).
- CWLPF’s TA Score: 5 bullish, 3 bearish.
- FLNCF’s TA Score: 3 bullish, 5 bearish.
Price Growth
CWLPF (@Other Consumer Services) experienced а -5.56% price change this week, while FLNCF (@Internet Software/Services) price change was -17.81% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Other Consumer Services industry was +16.61%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +21.75%, and the average quarterly price growth was +9.87%.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Internet Software/Services industry was +1.17%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +6.08%, and the average quarterly price growth was +27.49%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Other Consumer Services (+16.61% weekly)Other consumer services include companies that provide consumer services, and are not classified elsewhere. Travel fare aggregators, hotel bookings, consumer-to-consumer or business-to-business sales platforms are some examples of services that can be clubbed into this category. Many of such services have expanded online. Booking Holdings Inc, The Priceline Group Inc, and eBay Inc. are some major operators in this segment.
@Internet Software/Services (+1.17% weekly)Companies in this industry typically license software on a subscription basis and it is centrally hosted. Such products usually go by the names web-based software, on-demand software and hosted software. Cloud computing has emerged as a major force in this space, making it possible to save files to a remote database (without requiring them to be saved on local storage device); as long as a device has access to the web, it can access the data and the software programs to run it. This has in many cases facilitated cost efficiency, speed and security of data for businesses and consumers. Alphabet Inc., Facebook, Inc. and Yahoo! Inc. are some well-known names in the internet software/services industry.
| CWLPF | FLNCF | CWLPF / FLNCF | |
| Capitalization | 15M | 66.4M | 23% |
| EBITDA | 3.37M | 8.37M | 40% |
| Gain YTD | -41.081 | -4.500 | 913% |
| P/E Ratio | 35.18 | 31.05 | 113% |
| Revenue | 94.7M | 53.1M | 178% |
| Total Cash | 15.4M | N/A | - |
| Total Debt | 6.05M | N/A | - |
CWLPF | FLNCF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 31 Undervalued | 82 Overvalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 90 | 75 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 84 | 65 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 3 | 98 | |
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.
CWLPF's Valuation (31) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for FLNCF (82). This means that CWLPF’s stock grew somewhat faster than FLNCF’s over the last 12 months.
CWLPF's Profit vs Risk Rating (100) in the null industry is in the same range as FLNCF (100). This means that CWLPF’s stock grew similarly to FLNCF’s over the last 12 months.
FLNCF's SMR Rating (75) in the null industry is in the same range as CWLPF (90). This means that FLNCF’s stock grew similarly to CWLPF’s over the last 12 months.
FLNCF's Price Growth Rating (65) in the null industry is in the same range as CWLPF (84). This means that FLNCF’s stock grew similarly to CWLPF’s over the last 12 months.
CWLPF's P/E Growth Rating (3) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for FLNCF (98). This means that CWLPF’s stock grew significantly faster than FLNCF’s over the last 12 months.
| CWLPF | FLNCF | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 59% | N/A |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 69% | 4 days ago 66% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 47% | 4 days ago 75% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 62% | 4 days ago 63% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 54% | 4 days ago 69% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 68% | 4 days ago 65% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | 14 days ago 68% | N/A |
| Declines ODDS (%) | 6 days ago 82% | 7 days ago 76% |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 48% | 4 days ago 57% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 70% | 4 days ago 54% |
Advertisement
CWLPF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that CWLPF and RANJF have been poorly correlated (+28% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CWLPF and RANJF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CWLPF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CWLPF | 100% | N/A | ||
| RANJF - CWLPF | 28% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| RANJY - CWLPF | 3% Poorly correlated | -0.91% | ||
| RLBY - CWLPF | 2% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| FLNCF - CWLPF | 1% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| HQI - CWLPF | 1% Poorly correlated | +1.61% | ||
More | ||||
FLNCF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that FLNCF and HQI have been poorly correlated (+16% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that FLNCF and HQI's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To FLNCF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FLNCF | 100% | N/A | ||
| HQI - FLNCF | 16% Poorly correlated | +1.61% | ||
| RANJY - FLNCF | 2% Poorly correlated | -0.91% | ||
| MPGPF - FLNCF | 1% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CWLPF - FLNCF | 1% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| RLBY - FLNCF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||