DIBS vs LQDT
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 DIBS is a Hold and LQDT 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).
DIBS’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whileLQDT’s FA Score has 2 green FA rating(s).
- DIBS’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
- LQDT’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 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.
DIBS’s TA Score shows that 4 TA indicator(s) are bullish while LQDT’s TA Score has 4 bullish TA indicator(s).
- DIBS’s TA Score: 4 bullish, 6 bearish.
- LQDT’s TA Score: 4 bullish, 6 bearish.
Price Growth
DIBS (@Internet Retail) experienced а -14.98% price change this week, while LQDT (@Internet Retail) price change was -0.51% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Internet Retail industry was +1.53%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -8.19%, and the average quarterly price growth was -13.35%.
Reported Earning Dates
DIBS is expected to report earnings on May 07, 2025.
LQDT is expected to report earnings on May 08, 2025.
Industries' Descriptions
@Internet Retail (+1.53% weekly)The internet retail industry includes companies that sell products and services through the Internet. With more and more consumers using online retailers, the companies have seen a big increase in the use of their services. Some of the companies in the group are focused on selling business-to-business products and services. Others sell business-to-consumer products and services. Internet retailers offer a wide variety of products like books, apparel, and electronics. Some companies even specialize in only one or two categories. One potentially critical factor for players to thrive in this space is the quality and speed of product delivery. This requires an investment in efficient distribution networks. Things like logistics are important factors in the success in the extremely competitive industry. For a company to stay relevant in the industry it must have effective pricing strategies and upgraded websites. The websites must be easy to navigate and engaging for customers. In addition to the revenues generated from straight sales, internet retailers can generate revenue from subscription fees and advertising. Amazon.com, Inc., Alibaba Group, and JD.com are some of the global leaders.
| DIBS | LQDT | DIBS / LQDT | |
| Capitalization | 94.6M | 963M | 10% |
| EBITDA | -13.18M | 40.6M | -32% |
| Gain YTD | -25.424 | -3.933 | 646% |
| P/E Ratio | N/A | 41.36 | - |
| Revenue | 88.3M | 414M | 21% |
| Total Cash | 104M | 139M | 75% |
| Total Debt | 22.2M | 13.4M | 166% |
LQDT | ||
|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 80 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 81 Overvalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 19 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 58 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 42 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 17 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 50 |
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.
| DIBS | LQDT | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | 5 days ago 85% | 5 days ago 90% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 5 days ago 90% | 5 days ago 62% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 5 days ago 84% | 5 days ago 77% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 5 days ago 68% | 5 days ago 73% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 5 days ago 81% | 5 days ago 63% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 5 days ago 78% | 5 days ago 66% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | 9 days ago 73% | 13 days ago 78% |
| Declines ODDS (%) | 5 days ago 84% | 11 days ago 62% |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | 5 days ago 85% | 5 days ago 72% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 5 days ago 82% | 5 days ago 61% |
DIBS and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that DIBS and RVLV have been poorly correlated (+26% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that DIBS and RVLV's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To DIBS | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DIBS | 100% | -8.01% | ||
| RVLV - DIBS | 26% Poorly correlated | -15.74% | ||
| VIPS - DIBS | 26% Poorly correlated | -3.32% | ||
| QVCGP - DIBS | 23% Poorly correlated | -1.65% | ||
| CART - DIBS | 23% Poorly correlated | -1.19% | ||
| LQDT - DIBS | 23% Poorly correlated | -2.02% | ||
More | ||||
LQDT and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that LQDT and LOGC have been poorly correlated (+27% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that LQDT and LOGC's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To LQDT | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LQDT | 100% | -2.02% | ||
| LOGC - LQDT | 27% Poorly correlated | -3.50% | ||
| RVLV - LQDT | 26% Poorly correlated | -15.74% | ||
| DIBS - LQDT | 25% Poorly correlated | -8.01% | ||
| W - LQDT | 24% Poorly correlated | -25.59% | ||
| JD - LQDT | 23% Poorly correlated | -2.90% | ||
More | ||||