GGGSF vs HLFFF
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 GGGSF is a Hold and HLFFF 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).
GGGSF’s FA Score shows that 2 FA rating(s) are green whileHLFFF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).
- GGGSF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
- HLFFF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
Price Growth
GGGSF (@Restaurants) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while HLFFF (@Restaurants) price change was +18.94% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Restaurants industry was +0.26%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +10.57%, and the average quarterly price growth was +33.90%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Restaurants (+0.26% weekly)The industry includes companies that operate full-service restaurants, fast food restaurants, cafeterias and snack bars. McDonald`s Corporation, Starbucks Corporation, YUM! Brands, Inc. and Restaurant Brands International Inc. are some of the largest U.S. restaurant-owning companies in terms of market capitalization. While restaurant spending could be viewed as discretionary for consumers, some companies in the business have been able to weather economic cycles by establishing strong loyalty among customers over the years. Many of them also have a strong global presence as well.
| GGGSF | HLFFF | GGGSF / HLFFF | |
| Capitalization | 3.37B | 2.12B | 159% |
| EBITDA | N/A | 245M | - |
| Gain YTD | 21.795 | -22.957 | -95% |
| P/E Ratio | 21.47 | 67.77 | 32% |
| Revenue | N/A | 7.71B | - |
| Total Cash | N/A | 373M | - |
| Total Debt | N/A | 50M | - |
GGGSF | HLFFF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 47 | 97 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 23 Undervalued | 79 Overvalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 49 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 33 | 93 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 51 | 37 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 51 | 17 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 55 | n/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.
GGGSF's Valuation (23) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for HLFFF (79). This means that GGGSF’s stock grew somewhat faster than HLFFF’s over the last 12 months.
GGGSF's Profit vs Risk Rating (49) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for HLFFF (100). This means that GGGSF’s stock grew somewhat faster than HLFFF’s over the last 12 months.
GGGSF's SMR Rating (33) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for HLFFF (93). This means that GGGSF’s stock grew somewhat faster than HLFFF’s over the last 12 months.
HLFFF's Price Growth Rating (37) in the null industry is in the same range as GGGSF (51). This means that HLFFF’s stock grew similarly to GGGSF’s over the last 12 months.
HLFFF's P/E Growth Rating (17) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for GGGSF (51). This means that HLFFF’s stock grew somewhat faster than GGGSF’s over the last 12 months.
| RSI ODDS (%) |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) |
| Momentum ODDS (%) |
| MACD ODDS (%) |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) |
| Advances ODDS (%) |
| Declines ODDS (%) |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) |
| Aroon ODDS (%) |
GGGSF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that GGGSF and THCH have been poorly correlated (+23% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that GGGSF and THCH's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To GGGSF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GGGSF | 100% | N/A | ||
| THCH - GGGSF | 23% Poorly correlated | -0.20% | ||
| LKNCY - GGGSF | 11% Poorly correlated | +5.19% | ||
| HLFFF - GGGSF | 4% Poorly correlated | +7.30% | ||
| DMPZF - GGGSF | 1% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| DMZPY - GGGSF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
HLFFF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that HLFFF and HELFY have been poorly correlated (+27% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that HLFFF and HELFY's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To HLFFF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HLFFF | 100% | +7.30% | ||
| HELFY - HLFFF | 27% Poorly correlated | +7.42% | ||
| LKNCY - HLFFF | 5% Poorly correlated | +5.19% | ||
| HDALF - HLFFF | 4% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| DPZUF - HLFFF | 4% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| GGGSF - HLFFF | 4% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||