Advertisement
HBUV vs SWPFF
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 HBUV is a Hold and SWPFF 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).
HBUV’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whileSWPFF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).
- HBUV’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
- SWPFF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 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.
SWPFF’s TA Score shows that 3 TA indicator(s) are bullish.
- SWPFF’s TA Score: 3 bullish, 3 bearish.
Price Growth
HBUV (@Real Estate Development) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while SWPFF (@Real Estate Development) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Real Estate Development industry was +3.18%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +2.54%, and the average quarterly price growth was +3.52%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Real Estate Development (+3.18% weekly)Activities range from the renovation and re-lease of existing buildings to the purchase of raw land and the sale of developed land or parcels to others. Demand for land development business is driven by GDP growth, employment rates, interest rates, and access to/cost of capital. For individual companies in this industry, proper cost estimation and successful bidding play critical roles in their profitability. Large companies could potentially have greater access to capital, while smaller companies can specialize in a specific geographic area or market niche. CBRE Group, VICI Properties Inc and Brookfield Property Partners L.P. are some of the large companies in this industry.
| HBUV | SWPFF | HBUV / SWPFF | |
| Capitalization | 34.1M | 15.2B | 0% |
| EBITDA | 1.05M | N/A | - |
| Gain YTD | 0.000 | 33.499 | - |
| P/E Ratio | N/A | 38.23 | - |
| Revenue | 2.1M | N/A | - |
| Total Cash | 53.7K | N/A | - |
| Total Debt | 21.1M | N/A | - |
HBUV | SWPFF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 36 | 32 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 79 Overvalued | 14 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 54 | 86 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 100 | 87 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 34 | 41 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 51 | 36 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 55 | 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.
SWPFF's Valuation (14) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for HBUV (79). This means that SWPFF’s stock grew somewhat faster than HBUV’s over the last 12 months.
HBUV's Profit vs Risk Rating (54) in the null industry is in the same range as SWPFF (86). This means that HBUV’s stock grew similarly to SWPFF’s over the last 12 months.
SWPFF's SMR Rating (87) in the null industry is in the same range as HBUV (100). This means that SWPFF’s stock grew similarly to HBUV’s over the last 12 months.
HBUV's Price Growth Rating (34) in the null industry is in the same range as SWPFF (41). This means that HBUV’s stock grew similarly to SWPFF’s over the last 12 months.
SWPFF's P/E Growth Rating (36) in the null industry is in the same range as HBUV (51). This means that SWPFF’s stock grew similarly to HBUV’s over the last 12 months.
| HBUV | SWPFF | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | N/A | 3 days ago 42% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | N/A | 3 days ago 41% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | N/A | 3 days ago 32% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | N/A | 3 days ago 40% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 15% | 3 days ago 33% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 12% | 3 days ago 31% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Declines ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | N/A | 3 days ago 38% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | N/A | 3 days ago 40% |
Advertisement
HBUV and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that HBUV and GYRO have been poorly correlated (+28% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that HBUV and GYRO's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To HBUV | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HBUV | 100% | N/A | ||
| GYRO - HBUV | 28% Poorly correlated | -3.52% | ||
| UOKA - HBUV | 25% Poorly correlated | -1.09% | ||
| SWPFF - HBUV | 22% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| AZLCZ - HBUV | 20% Poorly correlated | +0.69% | ||
| HNLGF - HBUV | 1% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
SWPFF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that SWPFF and CLILF have been poorly correlated (+23% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that SWPFF and CLILF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To SWPFF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SWPFF | 100% | N/A | ||
| CLILF - SWPFF | 23% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| HBUV - SWPFF | 22% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| ACNDF - SWPFF | 21% Poorly correlated | -2.39% | ||
| GRGTF - SWPFF | 20% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| SURDF - SWPFF | 5% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||