Advertisement
GZPZF vs PLSDF
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 GZPZF is a Buy and PLSDF 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).
GZPZF’s FA Score shows that 2 FA rating(s) are green whilePLSDF’s FA Score has 3 green FA rating(s).
- GZPZF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
- PLSDF’s FA Score: 3 green, 2 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.
PLSDF’s TA Score shows that 2 TA indicator(s) are bullish.
- PLSDF’s TA Score: 2 bullish, 3 bearish.
Price Growth
GZPZF (@Oilfield Services/Equipment) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while PLSDF (@Oilfield Services/Equipment) price change was +10.90% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Oilfield Services/Equipment industry was +1.15%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +6.61%, and the average quarterly price growth was +5.68%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Oilfield Services/Equipment (+1.15% weekly)The oilfield services/equipment industry is involved in providing various equipment and services to oil and natural gas producers. These companies rent drilling rigs and/or provide services to build and maintain oil and gas wells. The performance of this industry is dependent on demand for oil and natural gas, which in turn is often driven by macroeconomic conditions or business cycles. Schlumberger NV, Halliburton Company, and Baker Hughes are some of the biggest oilfield services companies.
| GZPZF | PLSDF | GZPZF / PLSDF | |
| Capitalization | 4.52B | 82.4M | 5,482% |
| EBITDA | 183M | 14.9M | 1,228% |
| Gain YTD | 6.029 | 48.976 | 12% |
| P/E Ratio | 23.92 | 39.84 | 60% |
| Revenue | 341M | 21.8M | 1,564% |
| Total Cash | 253M | 9.69M | 2,612% |
| Total Debt | 6.5M | 327K | 1,987% |
GZPZF | PLSDF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 55 Fair valued | 51 Fair valued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 17 | 26 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 14 | 17 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 58 | 38 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 94 | 22 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | n/a | 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.
PLSDF's Valuation (51) in the null industry is in the same range as GZPZF (55). This means that PLSDF’s stock grew similarly to GZPZF’s over the last 12 months.
GZPZF's Profit vs Risk Rating (17) in the null industry is in the same range as PLSDF (26). This means that GZPZF’s stock grew similarly to PLSDF’s over the last 12 months.
GZPZF's SMR Rating (14) in the null industry is in the same range as PLSDF (17). This means that GZPZF’s stock grew similarly to PLSDF’s over the last 12 months.
PLSDF's Price Growth Rating (38) in the null industry is in the same range as GZPZF (58). This means that PLSDF’s stock grew similarly to GZPZF’s over the last 12 months.
PLSDF's P/E Growth Rating (22) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for GZPZF (94). This means that PLSDF’s stock grew significantly faster than GZPZF’s over the last 12 months.
| GZPZF | PLSDF | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | N/A | 5 days ago 78% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | N/A | 5 days ago 69% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| MACD ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 5 days ago 12% | 5 days ago 66% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 5 days ago 12% | 5 days ago 70% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | N/A | 8 days ago 61% |
| Declines ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | N/A | 5 days ago 74% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | N/A | 5 days ago 67% |
Advertisement
GZPZF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, GZPZF has been loosely correlated with THNPF. These tickers have moved in lockstep 35% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if GZPZF jumps, then THNPF could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To GZPZF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GZPZF | 100% | N/A | ||
| THNPF - GZPZF | 35% Loosely correlated | N/A | ||
| PLSDF - GZPZF | 15% Poorly correlated | +6.59% | ||
| CESDF - GZPZF | 2% Poorly correlated | +4.89% | ||
| HGHAF - GZPZF | 1% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CTNR - GZPZF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
PLSDF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that PLSDF and GZPZF have been poorly correlated (+15% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that PLSDF and GZPZF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To PLSDF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PLSDF | 100% | +6.59% | ||
| GZPZF - PLSDF | 15% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| PDER - PLSDF | 7% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| POFCF - PLSDF | 6% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| HGHAF - PLSDF | 1% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| NSFDF - PLSDF | -0% Poorly correlated | -6.88% | ||
More | ||||