GCWOF
Price
$9.52
Change
+$0.02 (+0.21%)
Updated
Sep 18 closing price
Capitalization
3.09B
HLBZF
Price
$234.09
Change
+$14.43 (+6.57%)
Updated
Sep 26 closing price
Capitalization
40.67B
Interact to see
Advertisement

GCWOF vs HLBZF

Header iconGCWOF vs HLBZF Comparison
Open Charts GCWOF vs HLBZFBanner chart's image
Grupo Cementos de Chihuahua SAB de CV
Price$9.52
Change+$0.02 (+0.21%)
Volume$1K
Capitalization3.09B
HEIDELBERG MATERIALS AG
Price$234.09
Change+$14.43 (+6.57%)
Volume$246
Capitalization40.67B
GCWOF vs HLBZF Comparison Chart in %
Loading...
GCWOF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
HLBZF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
GCWOF vs. HLBZF commentary
Sep 28, 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 GCWOF is a Buy and HLBZF is a StrongBuy.

Interact to see
Advertisement
COMPARISON
Comparison
Sep 28, 2025
Stock price -- (GCWOF: $9.52 vs. HLBZF: $234.09)
Brand notoriety: GCWOF and HLBZF are both not notable
Both companies represent the Construction Materials industry
Current volume relative to the 65-day Moving Average: GCWOF: 30% vs. HLBZF: 4%
Market capitalization -- GCWOF: $3.09B vs. HLBZF: $40.67B
GCWOF [@Construction Materials] is valued at $3.09B. HLBZF’s [@Construction Materials] market capitalization is $40.67B. The market cap for tickers in the [@Construction Materials] industry ranges from $76.25B to $0. The average market capitalization across the [@Construction Materials] industry is $9.85B.

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).

GCWOF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileHLBZF’s FA Score has 3 green FA rating(s).

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

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.

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

  • GCWOF’s TA Score: 1 bullish, 4 bearish.
  • HLBZF’s TA Score: 3 bullish, 5 bearish.
According to our system of comparison, HLBZF is a better buy in the short-term than GCWOF.

Price Growth

GCWOF (@Construction Materials) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while HLBZF (@Construction Materials) price change was -4.66% for the same time period.

The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Construction Materials industry was -0.60%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -0.50%, and the average quarterly price growth was +17.55%.

Industries' Descriptions

@Construction Materials (-0.60% weekly)

Many naturally occurring substances, such as clay, rocks, sand, and wood, even twigs and leaves have been used in construction material. Many man-made products are also in use. Vulcan Materials Co., Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. and Owens Corning Inc. are examples of construction material companies in the U.S. Performance of companies that extract or produce construction materials could at times depend on demand for residential and commercial buildings/real estate, and therefore in some cases could feel impacted by economic cycles.

SUMMARIES
Loading...
FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
HLBZF($40.7B) has a higher market cap than GCWOF($3.09B). HLBZF has higher P/E ratio than GCWOF: HLBZF (19.22) vs GCWOF (10.41). HLBZF YTD gains are higher at: 86.526 vs. GCWOF (8.800). HLBZF has higher annual earnings (EBITDA): 4.57B vs. GCWOF (420M). HLBZF has more cash in the bank: 1.33B vs. GCWOF (827M). GCWOF has less debt than HLBZF: GCWOF (628M) vs HLBZF (8.66B). HLBZF has higher revenues than GCWOF: HLBZF (21.6B) vs GCWOF (1.34B).
GCWOFHLBZFGCWOF / HLBZF
Capitalization3.09B40.7B8%
EBITDA420M4.57B9%
Gain YTD8.80086.52610%
P/E Ratio10.4119.2254%
Revenue1.34B21.6B6%
Total Cash827M1.33B62%
Total Debt628M8.66B7%
FUNDAMENTALS RATINGS
GCWOF vs HLBZF: Fundamental Ratings
GCWOF
HLBZF
OUTLOOK RATING
1..100
5050
VALUATION
overvalued / fair valued / undervalued
1..100
86
Overvalued
16
Undervalued
PROFIT vs RISK RATING
1..100
4313
SMR RATING
1..100
5495
PRICE GROWTH RATING
1..100
5043
P/E GROWTH RATING
1..100
2310
SEASONALITY SCORE
1..100
30n/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.

HLBZF's Valuation (16) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for GCWOF (86). This means that HLBZF’s stock grew significantly faster than GCWOF’s over the last 12 months.

HLBZF's Profit vs Risk Rating (13) in the null industry is in the same range as GCWOF (43). This means that HLBZF’s stock grew similarly to GCWOF’s over the last 12 months.

GCWOF's SMR Rating (54) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for HLBZF (95). This means that GCWOF’s stock grew somewhat faster than HLBZF’s over the last 12 months.

HLBZF's Price Growth Rating (43) in the null industry is in the same range as GCWOF (50). This means that HLBZF’s stock grew similarly to GCWOF’s over the last 12 months.

HLBZF's P/E Growth Rating (10) in the null industry is in the same range as GCWOF (23). This means that HLBZF’s stock grew similarly to GCWOF’s over the last 12 months.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
GCWOFHLBZF
RSI
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
9%
N/A
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
25%
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
56%
Momentum
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
58%
MACD
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
29%
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
44%
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
34%
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
50%
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
36%
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
48%
Advances
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bullish Trend 10 days ago
55%
Declines
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bearish Trend 6 days ago
45%
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
45%
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
68%
Aroon
ODDS (%)
N/A
N/A
View a ticker or compare two or three
Interact to see
Advertisement
GCWOF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
HLBZF
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 %
PTCT58.991.15
+1.99%
PTC Therapeutics
MIRA1.320.02
+1.54%
MIRA Pharmaceuticals
ALL212.762.94
+1.40%
Allstate Corp (The)
TMP68.630.29
+0.42%
Tompkins Financial Corp
MACI10.55N/A
N/A
Melar Acquisition Corp. I

GCWOF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that GCWOF and CTXXF have been poorly correlated (+8% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that GCWOF and CTXXF's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To GCWOF
1D Price
Change %
GCWOF100%
N/A
CTXXF - GCWOF
8%
Poorly correlated
+1.76%
CMTOY - GCWOF
7%
Poorly correlated
N/A
HLBZF - GCWOF
7%
Poorly correlated
+6.57%
HCMLY - GCWOF
5%
Poorly correlated
+1.56%
HDLMY - GCWOF
4%
Poorly correlated
+1.86%
More

HLBZF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that HLBZF and HDLMY have been poorly correlated (+31% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that HLBZF and HDLMY's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To HLBZF
1D Price
Change %
HLBZF100%
+6.57%
HDLMY - HLBZF
31%
Poorly correlated
+1.86%
BRKWF - HLBZF
30%
Poorly correlated
N/A
HCMLY - HLBZF
22%
Poorly correlated
+1.56%
FRCEF - HLBZF
10%
Poorly correlated
N/A
GCWOF - HLBZF
7%
Poorly correlated
N/A
More