EMLAF
Price
$41.22
Change
+$0.56 (+1.38%)
Updated
Jul 3 closing price
Capitalization
6.78B
LBLCF
Price
$164.21
Change
+$2.29 (+1.41%)
Updated
Jul 3 closing price
Capitalization
27.92B
Interact to see
Advertisement

EMLAF vs LBLCF

Header iconEMLAF vs LBLCF Comparison
Open Charts EMLAF vs LBLCFBanner chart's image
Empire
Price$41.22
Change+$0.56 (+1.38%)
Volume$3.25K
Capitalization6.78B
Loblaw Companies
Price$164.21
Change+$2.29 (+1.41%)
Volume$711
Capitalization27.92B
EMLAF vs LBLCF Comparison Chart in %
Loading...
EMLAF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
LBLCF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
EMLAF vs. LBLCF 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 EMLAF is a Buy and LBLCF is a Hold.

Interact to see
Advertisement
COMPARISON
Comparison
Jul 07, 2025
Stock price -- (EMLAF: $41.22 vs. LBLCF: $164.21)
Brand notoriety: EMLAF and LBLCF are both not notable
Both companies represent the Food Retail industry
Current volume relative to the 65-day Moving Average: EMLAF: 11% vs. LBLCF: 11%
Market capitalization -- EMLAF: $6.78B vs. LBLCF: $27.92B
EMLAF [@Food Retail] is valued at $6.78B. LBLCF’s [@Food Retail] market capitalization is $27.92B. The market cap for tickers in the [@Food Retail] industry ranges from $41.13B to $0. The average market capitalization across the [@Food Retail] industry is $12B.

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).

EMLAF’s FA Score shows that 3 FA rating(s) are green whileLBLCF’s FA Score has 2 green FA rating(s).

  • EMLAF’s FA Score: 3 green, 2 red.
  • LBLCF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
According to our system of comparison, EMLAF is a better buy in the long-term than LBLCF.

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.

EMLAF’s TA Score shows that 3 TA indicator(s) are bullish while LBLCF’s TA Score has 1 bullish TA indicator(s).

  • EMLAF’s TA Score: 3 bullish, 3 bearish.
  • LBLCF’s TA Score: 1 bullish, 4 bearish.
According to our system of comparison, EMLAF is a better buy in the short-term than LBLCF.

Price Growth

EMLAF (@Food Retail) experienced а -0.17% price change this week, while LBLCF (@Food Retail) price change was +0.39% for the same time period.

The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Food Retail industry was +1.48%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -0.31%, and the average quarterly price growth was +5.71%.

Industries' Descriptions

@Food Retail (+1.48% weekly)

The food retail industry includes companies that sell food, beverage and household products. Items sold include grocery, gourmet food, fresh produce, and frozen food. Kroger Co., George Weston Ltd., Grocery Outlet Holding Corp., and Sprouts Farmers Markets, Inc. are examples of major food retailers. While e-commerce companies like Amazon have increasingly been ramping-up offerings in the food retail space, several traditional players have also been expanding their online presence to stand their ground against rising competition.

SUMMARIES
Loading...
FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
LBLCF($27.9B) has a higher market cap than EMLAF($6.78B). LBLCF has higher P/E ratio than EMLAF: LBLCF (18.80) vs EMLAF (13.68). EMLAF YTD gains are higher at: 35.103 vs. LBLCF (24.979). LBLCF has higher annual earnings (EBITDA): 6.46B vs. EMLAF (2.28B). LBLCF has more cash in the bank: 1.74B vs. EMLAF (221M). EMLAF has less debt than LBLCF: EMLAF (7.27B) vs LBLCF (18B). LBLCF has higher revenues than EMLAF: LBLCF (58.1B) vs EMLAF (30.5B).
EMLAFLBLCFEMLAF / LBLCF
Capitalization6.78B27.9B24%
EBITDA2.28B6.46B35%
Gain YTD35.10324.979141%
P/E Ratio13.6818.8073%
Revenue30.5B58.1B52%
Total Cash221M1.74B13%
Total Debt7.27B18B40%
FUNDAMENTALS RATINGS
EMLAF vs LBLCF: Fundamental Ratings
EMLAF
LBLCF
OUTLOOK RATING
1..100
9350
VALUATION
overvalued / fair valued / undervalued
1..100
30
Undervalued
94
Overvalued
PROFIT vs RISK RATING
1..100
282
SMR RATING
1..100
6045
PRICE GROWTH RATING
1..100
4147
P/E GROWTH RATING
1..100
1626
SEASONALITY SCORE
1..100
50n/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.

EMLAF's Valuation (30) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for LBLCF (94). This means that EMLAF’s stock grew somewhat faster than LBLCF’s over the last 12 months.

LBLCF's Profit vs Risk Rating (2) in the null industry is in the same range as EMLAF (28). This means that LBLCF’s stock grew similarly to EMLAF’s over the last 12 months.

LBLCF's SMR Rating (45) in the null industry is in the same range as EMLAF (60). This means that LBLCF’s stock grew similarly to EMLAF’s over the last 12 months.

EMLAF's Price Growth Rating (41) in the null industry is in the same range as LBLCF (47). This means that EMLAF’s stock grew similarly to LBLCF’s over the last 12 months.

EMLAF's P/E Growth Rating (16) in the null industry is in the same range as LBLCF (26). This means that EMLAF’s stock grew similarly to LBLCF’s over the last 12 months.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
EMLAFLBLCF
RSI
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 5 days ago
44%
Bearish Trend 5 days ago
27%
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 5 days ago
34%
Bearish Trend 5 days ago
32%
Momentum
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 5 days ago
49%
Bullish Trend 5 days ago
59%
MACD
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 5 days ago
43%
Bearish Trend 5 days ago
31%
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 5 days ago
39%
Bullish Trend 5 days ago
52%
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 5 days ago
52%
Bearish Trend 5 days ago
35%
Advances
ODDS (%)
N/A
N/A
Declines
ODDS (%)
N/A
N/A
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 5 days ago
32%
Bearish Trend 5 days ago
29%
Aroon
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 5 days ago
52%
N/A
View a ticker or compare two or three
Interact to see
Advertisement
EMLAF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
LBLCF
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 %
SGLY1.110.15
+15.38%
Singularity Future Technology Ltd
DSP13.780.47
+3.53%
Viant Technology
BLND3.530.11
+3.22%
Blend Labs
ZS314.775.44
+1.76%
Zscaler
ACIW46.210.72
+1.58%
ACI Worldwide

EMLAF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that EMLAF and MTRAF have been poorly correlated (+32% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that EMLAF and MTRAF's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To EMLAF
1D Price
Change %
EMLAF100%
+1.38%
MTRAF - EMLAF
32%
Poorly correlated
+2.31%
JSAIY - EMLAF
12%
Poorly correlated
+2.33%
DNOPY - EMLAF
11%
Poorly correlated
+4.29%
LBLCF - EMLAF
9%
Poorly correlated
+1.41%
EUSHY - EMLAF
6%
Poorly correlated
N/A
More

LBLCF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that LBLCF and OCDGF have been poorly correlated (+23% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that LBLCF and OCDGF's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To LBLCF
1D Price
Change %
LBLCF100%
+1.41%
OCDGF - LBLCF
23%
Poorly correlated
+4.53%
CRRFY - LBLCF
23%
Poorly correlated
+1.03%
OCDDY - LBLCF
22%
Poorly correlated
+2.19%
KKOYF - LBLCF
22%
Poorly correlated
N/A
WNGRF - LBLCF
21%
Poorly correlated
N/A
More