IBIDF vs MNBEF
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 IBIDF is a Hold and MNBEF 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).
IBIDF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileMNBEF’s FA Score has 2 green FA rating(s).
- IBIDF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- MNBEF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
Price Growth
IBIDF (@Electronic Components) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while MNBEF (@Electronic Components) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Electronic Components industry was -0.59%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +0.88%, and the average quarterly price growth was +6.71%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Electronic Components (-0.59% weekly)The Electronic Components industry produces electronic equipment for industries and consumer electronics products, such as mobile devices, televisions, and circuit boards. TE Connectivity Ltd, for example, is a company that designs and manufactures connectivity and sensor products for harsh environments in various industries, such as automotive, industrial equipment, aerospace, and oil & gas. Another major player, Corning Inc., makes advanced optics including end-to-end fiber and wireless solutions for communications networks along with various other technologies catering to industrial and scientific applications.
| IBIDF | MNBEF | IBIDF / MNBEF | |
| Capitalization | 4.37B | 6.37B | 69% |
| EBITDA | N/A | N/A | - |
| Gain YTD | -8.167 | -11.502 | 71% |
| P/E Ratio | 27.53 | 20.97 | 131% |
| Revenue | N/A | N/A | - |
| Total Cash | N/A | N/A | - |
| Total Debt | N/A | N/A | - |
IBIDF | MNBEF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 49 | 44 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 27 Undervalued | 20 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 45 | 94 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 60 | 64 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 52 | 56 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 65 | 24 | |
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.
MNBEF's Valuation (20) in the null industry is in the same range as IBIDF (27). This means that MNBEF’s stock grew similarly to IBIDF’s over the last 12 months.
IBIDF's Profit vs Risk Rating (45) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for MNBEF (94). This means that IBIDF’s stock grew somewhat faster than MNBEF’s over the last 12 months.
IBIDF's SMR Rating (60) in the null industry is in the same range as MNBEF (64). This means that IBIDF’s stock grew similarly to MNBEF’s over the last 12 months.
IBIDF's Price Growth Rating (52) in the null industry is in the same range as MNBEF (56). This means that IBIDF’s stock grew similarly to MNBEF’s over the last 12 months.
MNBEF's P/E Growth Rating (24) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for IBIDF (65). This means that MNBEF’s stock grew somewhat faster than IBIDF’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 (%) |
IBIDF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that IBIDF and KULR have been poorly correlated (+2% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that IBIDF and KULR's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To IBIDF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IBIDF | 100% | N/A | ||
| KULR - IBIDF | 2% Poorly correlated | -22.52% | ||
| JNPKF - IBIDF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| MNBEF - IBIDF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| IACYF - IBIDF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| KGBLY - IBIDF | -0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
MNBEF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that MNBEF and JNNDF have been poorly correlated (+2% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that MNBEF and JNNDF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To MNBEF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MNBEF | 100% | N/A | ||
| JNNDF - MNBEF | 2% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| HRSEF - MNBEF | 1% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| IEHC - MNBEF | 1% Poorly correlated | +3.89% | ||
| JPDYY - MNBEF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| IBIDF - MNBEF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||