Advertisement
GLUC vs GRBMF
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 GLUC is a Hold and GRBMF is a Buy.
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).
GLUC’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileGRBMF’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- GLUC’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- GRBMF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
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.
GLUC’s TA Score shows that 3 TA indicator(s) are bullish while GRBMF’s TA Score has 4 bullish TA indicator(s).
- GLUC’s TA Score: 3 bullish, 5 bearish.
- GRBMF’s TA Score: 4 bullish, 4 bearish.
Price Growth
GLUC (@Food: Specialty/Candy) experienced а -10.30% price change this week, while GRBMF (@Food: Specialty/Candy) price change was +3.37% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Food: Specialty/Candy industry was -0.38%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +0.26%, and the average quarterly price growth was +0.17%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Food: Specialty/Candy (-0.38% weekly)A specialty/candy manufacturer specializes in one or more of the following: chocolate, candies, pasta, condiments, seasonings, among other items. Hershey Company, McCormick & Company and J.M. Smucker Company are some of the major firms in this segment. Demand for this industry’s products comes from both institutions/restaurants as well as households.
| GLUC | GRBMF | GLUC / GRBMF | |
| Capitalization | 648K | 23.1B | 0% |
| EBITDA | -32.45K | 71.7B | -0% |
| Gain YTD | -32.500 | 6.502 | -500% |
| P/E Ratio | N/A | 12.17 | - |
| Revenue | 88.1K | 408B | 0% |
| Total Cash | 29.3K | 7.19B | 0% |
| Total Debt | 431K | 120B | 0% |
GLUC | GRBMF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 21 | 25 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 61 Fair valued | 49 Fair valued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 70 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 100 | 65 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 65 | 62 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 4 | 66 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | n/a | 50 |
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.
GRBMF's Valuation (49) in the null industry is in the same range as GLUC (61). This means that GRBMF’s stock grew similarly to GLUC’s over the last 12 months.
GRBMF's Profit vs Risk Rating (70) in the null industry is in the same range as GLUC (100). This means that GRBMF’s stock grew similarly to GLUC’s over the last 12 months.
GRBMF's SMR Rating (65) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for GLUC (100). This means that GRBMF’s stock grew somewhat faster than GLUC’s over the last 12 months.
GRBMF's Price Growth Rating (62) in the null industry is in the same range as GLUC (65). This means that GRBMF’s stock grew similarly to GLUC’s over the last 12 months.
GLUC's P/E Growth Rating (4) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for GRBMF (66). This means that GLUC’s stock grew somewhat faster than GRBMF’s over the last 12 months.
| GLUC | GRBMF | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 90% | 2 days ago 79% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 86% | 2 days ago 87% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 90% | 2 days ago 76% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 90% | 2 days ago 75% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 90% | 2 days ago 76% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 90% | 2 days ago 62% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Declines ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 90% | 2 days ago 77% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 90% | 2 days ago 80% |
Advertisement
GLUC and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that GLUC and GUZOF have been poorly correlated (+10% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that GLUC and GUZOF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To GLUC | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GLUC | 100% | -10.30% | ||
| GUZOF - GLUC | 10% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| GRBMF - GLUC | 5% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| GLAPY - GLUC | 4% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| GCHOY - GLUC | 2% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| HLNFF - GLUC | -0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
GRBMF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that GRBMF and BMBOY have been poorly correlated (+31% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that GRBMF and BMBOY's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To GRBMF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GRBMF | 100% | N/A | ||
| BMBOY - GRBMF | 31% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| FTLF - GRBMF | 11% Poorly correlated | +0.16% | ||
| GPAGF - GRBMF | 9% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| GLUC - GRBMF | 5% Poorly correlated | -10.30% | ||
| GLAPF - GRBMF | 5% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||