ENADF vs MHUBF
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 ENADF is a Hold and MHUBF 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).
ENADF’s FA Score shows that 2 FA rating(s) are green whileMHUBF’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- ENADF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
- MHUBF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
Price Growth
ENADF (@Packaged Software) experienced а +8.11% price change this week, while MHUBF (@Packaged Software) price change was +9.34% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Packaged Software industry was +4.57%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -1.89%, and the average quarterly price growth was +4.46%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Packaged Software (+4.57% weekly)Packaged software comprises multiple software programs bundled together and sold as a group. For example, Microsoft Office includes multiple applications such as Excel, Word, and PowerPoint. In some cases, buying a bundled product is cheaper than purchasing each item individually[s20] . Microsoft Corporation, Oracle Corp. and Adobe are some major American packaged software makers.
| ENADF | MHUBF | ENADF / MHUBF | |
| Capitalization | 246M | 27.9M | 882% |
| EBITDA | 576M | -8.19M | -7,034% |
| Gain YTD | 2.564 | 59.656 | 4% |
| P/E Ratio | 18.45 | N/A | - |
| Revenue | 2.05B | 528K | 388,258% |
| Total Cash | 453M | 897K | 50,502% |
| Total Debt | 458M | 776K | 59,021% |
| RSI ODDS (%) |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) |
| Momentum ODDS (%) |
| MACD ODDS (%) |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) |
| Advances ODDS (%) |
| Declines ODDS (%) |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) |
| Aroon ODDS (%) |
ENADF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that ENADF and CRM have been poorly correlated (+30% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that ENADF and CRM's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To ENADF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ENADF | 100% | N/A | ||
| CRM - ENADF | 30% Poorly correlated | +5.68% | ||
| GXAI - ENADF | 29% Poorly correlated | +7.55% | ||
| FMTO - ENADF | 24% Poorly correlated | +4.15% | ||
| BLZE - ENADF | 22% Poorly correlated | -2.19% | ||
| GENTF - ENADF | 20% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
MHUBF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that MHUBF and EXNWF have been poorly correlated (+29% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that MHUBF and EXNWF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To MHUBF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MHUBF | 100% | +12.99% | ||
| EXNWF - MHUBF | 29% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| BKKT - MHUBF | 9% Poorly correlated | +11.16% | ||
| KCRD - MHUBF | 8% Poorly correlated | -12.50% | ||
| SOPA - MHUBF | 5% Poorly correlated | +5.99% | ||
| ENADF - MHUBF | 1% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||