GBLBF
Price
$88.71
Change
+$1.45 (+1.66%)
Updated
Aug 19 closing price
Capitalization
10.85B
PYCFF
Price
$1.85
Change
+$0.03 (+1.65%)
Updated
Sep 5 closing price
Capitalization
54.19M
Interact to see
Advertisement

GBLBF vs PYCFF

Header iconGBLBF vs PYCFF Comparison
Open Charts GBLBF vs PYCFFBanner chart's image
Groupe Bruxelles Lambert SA
Price$88.71
Change+$1.45 (+1.66%)
Volume$665
Capitalization10.85B
Mount Logan Cap
Price$1.85
Change+$0.03 (+1.65%)
Volume$6.6K
Capitalization54.19M
GBLBF vs PYCFF Comparison Chart in %
Loading...
GBLBF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
PYCFF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
GBLBF vs. PYCFF commentary
Sep 09, 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 GBLBF is a Hold and PYCFF is a Hold.

Interact to see
Advertisement
COMPARISON
Comparison
Sep 09, 2025
Stock price -- (GBLBF: $88.71 vs. PYCFF: $1.85)
Brand notoriety: GBLBF and PYCFF are both not notable
Both companies represent the Investment Managers industry
Current volume relative to the 65-day Moving Average: GBLBF: 198% vs. PYCFF: 42%
Market capitalization -- GBLBF: $10.79B vs. PYCFF: $54.28M
GBLBF [@Investment Managers] is valued at $10.79B. PYCFF’s [@Investment Managers] market capitalization is $54.28M. The market cap for tickers in the [@Investment Managers] industry ranges from $170.21B to $0. The average market capitalization across the [@Investment Managers] industry is $7.56B.

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).

GBLBF’s FA Score shows that 2 FA rating(s) are green whilePYCFF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).

  • GBLBF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
  • PYCFF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
According to our system of comparison, GBLBF is a better buy in the long-term than PYCFF.

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.

GBLBF’s TA Score shows that 4 TA indicator(s) are bullish while PYCFF’s TA Score has 2 bullish TA indicator(s).

  • GBLBF’s TA Score: 4 bullish, 1 bearish.
  • PYCFF’s TA Score: 2 bullish, 3 bearish.
According to our system of comparison, GBLBF is a better buy in the short-term than PYCFF.

Price Growth

GBLBF (@Investment Managers) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while PYCFF (@Investment Managers) price change was +1.78% for the same time period.

The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Investment Managers industry was -0.12%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +2.75%, and the average quarterly price growth was +44.99%.

Industries' Descriptions

@Investment Managers (-0.12% weekly)

Investment Managers manage financial assets and other investments of clients. Management includes designing a short- or long-term strategy for buying/holding and selling of portfolio holdings. It can also include tax services and other aspects of financial planning as well. While it is perceived that the industry is faced with growing competition from robo-advisors/digital platforms and passive/ index-tracking funds, many investors still find value in actively managed in-person services that investment management companies often emphasize on. At the same time, many wealth managers are also incorporating digital initiatives/low cost options in addition to their in-person customized services. Their main sources of revenues are fees as a percentage of assets under management, in addition to a certain portion of clients’ gains from asset appreciation. BlackRock, Inc., Blackstone Group Inc and Brookfield Asset Management are some of the major investment management companies.

SUMMARIES
Loading...
FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
GBLBF($10.8B) has a higher market cap than PYCFF($54.2M). GBLBF has higher P/E ratio than PYCFF: GBLBF (316.39) vs PYCFF (1.14). GBLBF YTD gains are higher at: 30.841 vs. PYCFF (9.293). GBLBF has higher annual earnings (EBITDA): 786M vs. PYCFF (-13.86M). GBLBF has more cash in the bank: 3.37B vs. PYCFF (236M). PYCFF has less debt than GBLBF: PYCFF (95.9M) vs GBLBF (7.39B). GBLBF has higher revenues than PYCFF: GBLBF (6.09B) vs PYCFF (202M).
GBLBFPYCFFGBLBF / PYCFF
Capitalization10.8B54.2M19,926%
EBITDA786M-13.86M-5,672%
Gain YTD30.8419.293332%
P/E Ratio316.391.1427,816%
Revenue6.09B202M3,014%
Total Cash3.37B236M1,430%
Total Debt7.39B95.9M7,701%
FUNDAMENTALS RATINGS
GBLBF vs PYCFF: Fundamental Ratings
GBLBF
PYCFF
OUTLOOK RATING
1..100
5050
VALUATION
overvalued / fair valued / undervalued
1..100
11
Undervalued
21
Undervalued
PROFIT vs RISK RATING
1..100
100100
SMR RATING
1..100
9298
PRICE GROWTH RATING
1..100
4949
P/E GROWTH RATING
1..100
177
SEASONALITY SCORE
1..100
6526

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.

GBLBF's Valuation (11) in the null industry is in the same range as PYCFF (21). This means that GBLBF’s stock grew similarly to PYCFF’s over the last 12 months.

GBLBF's Profit vs Risk Rating (100) in the null industry is in the same range as PYCFF (100). This means that GBLBF’s stock grew similarly to PYCFF’s over the last 12 months.

GBLBF's SMR Rating (92) in the null industry is in the same range as PYCFF (98). This means that GBLBF’s stock grew similarly to PYCFF’s over the last 12 months.

GBLBF's Price Growth Rating (49) in the null industry is in the same range as PYCFF (49). This means that GBLBF’s stock grew similarly to PYCFF’s over the last 12 months.

GBLBF's P/E Growth Rating (1) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for PYCFF (77). This means that GBLBF’s stock grew significantly faster than PYCFF’s over the last 12 months.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
GBLBFPYCFF
RSI
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
33%
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
61%
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
36%
Momentum
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
57%
N/A
MACD
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
37%
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
29%
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
37%
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
17%
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
45%
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
16%
Advances
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 27 days ago
30%
N/A
Declines
ODDS (%)
N/A
N/A
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
33%
Aroon
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
49%
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
36%
View a ticker or compare two or three
Interact to see
Advertisement
GBLBF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
PYCFF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
Interesting Tickers
1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
1 Day
ETFs / NAMEPrice $Chg $Chg %
AGIX34.190.36
+1.06%
KraneShares Artfcl Intllgnc and Tech ETF
GSID65.790.16
+0.24%
Goldman Sachs MarketBeta Intl Eq ETF
BAMA32.810.05
+0.15%
Brookstone Active ETF
IVW115.99-0.11
-0.09%
iShares S&P 500 Growth ETF
PIN25.35-0.10
-0.39%
Invesco India ETF

GBLBF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that GBLBF and FNCSF have been poorly correlated (+25% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that GBLBF and FNCSF's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To GBLBF
1D Price
Change %
GBLBF100%
N/A
FNCSF - GBLBF
25%
Poorly correlated
+0.94%
IOOFF - GBLBF
23%
Poorly correlated
N/A
WNMLA - GBLBF
21%
Poorly correlated
N/A
GCMG - GBLBF
10%
Poorly correlated
+0.39%
JFHHF - GBLBF
9%
Poorly correlated
N/A
More

PYCFF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, PYCFF has been loosely correlated with TEKCF. These tickers have moved in lockstep 56% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if PYCFF jumps, then TEKCF could also see price increases.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To PYCFF
1D Price
Change %
PYCFF100%
+1.78%
TEKCF - PYCFF
56%
Loosely correlated
N/A
SRXXF - PYCFF
6%
Poorly correlated
N/A
GBLBF - PYCFF
5%
Poorly correlated
N/A
AGNMF - PYCFF
3%
Poorly correlated
-6.38%
WNDLF - PYCFF
1%
Poorly correlated
N/A
More