IMBBF vs PHJMF
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 IMBBF is a Hold and PHJMF 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).
IMBBF’s FA Score shows that 2 FA rating(s) are green whilePHJMF’s FA Score has 2 green FA rating(s).
- IMBBF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
- PHJMF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
Price Growth
IMBBF (@Tobacco) experienced а -4.17% price change this week, while PHJMF (@Tobacco) price change was -36.13% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Tobacco industry was -4.80%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -8.31%, and the average quarterly price growth was -12.28%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Tobacco (-4.80% weekly)The industry is engaged in the growth, preparation for sale, advertisement, and distribution of tobacco and tobacco-related products like cigarettes. In 2017, tobacco companies spent an estimated $9.36 billion marketing cigarettes and smokeless tobacco in the U.S. – an amount that translates to more than $25 million each day (according to a CDC report). Philip Morris International Inc., Altria Group Inc., and British American Tobacco plc are some major cigar makers. In recent times, vaping or the use of e-cigarette (does not burn tobacco) is gaining momentum – several established cigarette makers are trying to expand their footprint in this new market.
| IMBBF | PHJMF | IMBBF / PHJMF | |
| Capitalization | 25B | 5.09B | 491% |
| EBITDA | N/A | 9.16T | - |
| Gain YTD | 26.946 | -41.667 | -65% |
| P/E Ratio | 10.15 | 8.96 | 113% |
| Revenue | N/A | 117.16T | - |
| Total Cash | N/A | 6.03T | - |
| Total Debt | N/A | 391B | - |
IMBBF | PHJMF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 75 | 34 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 21 Undervalued | 10 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 54 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 49 | 12 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 49 | 65 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 28 | 85 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 85 | 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.
PHJMF's Valuation (10) in the null industry is in the same range as IMBBF (21). This means that PHJMF’s stock grew similarly to IMBBF’s over the last 12 months.
IMBBF's Profit vs Risk Rating (54) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for PHJMF (100). This means that IMBBF’s stock grew somewhat faster than PHJMF’s over the last 12 months.
PHJMF's SMR Rating (12) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for IMBBF (49). This means that PHJMF’s stock grew somewhat faster than IMBBF’s over the last 12 months.
IMBBF's Price Growth Rating (49) in the null industry is in the same range as PHJMF (65). This means that IMBBF’s stock grew similarly to PHJMF’s over the last 12 months.
IMBBF's P/E Growth Rating (28) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for PHJMF (85). This means that IMBBF’s stock grew somewhat faster than PHJMF’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 (%) |
IMBBF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that IMBBF and BTAFF have been poorly correlated (+22% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that IMBBF and BTAFF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To IMBBF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IMBBF | 100% | -1.49% | ||
| BTAFF - IMBBF | 22% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| JAPAY - IMBBF | 7% Poorly correlated | -0.89% | ||
| GDNGY - IMBBF | 3% Poorly correlated | +0.74% | ||
| VPRB - IMBBF | 0% Poorly correlated | -7.90% | ||
| PHJMF - IMBBF | -1% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
PHJMF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that PHJMF and GDNGY have been poorly correlated (+6% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that PHJMF and GDNGY's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To PHJMF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PHJMF | 100% | N/A | ||
| GDNGY - PHJMF | 6% Poorly correlated | +0.74% | ||
| IMBBF - PHJMF | -1% Poorly correlated | -1.49% | ||
| JAPAF - PHJMF | -3% Poorly correlated | -1.46% | ||
| IMBBY - PHJMF | -4% Poorly correlated | -0.33% | ||
| GRAM - PHJMF | -6% Poorly correlated | -5.66% | ||
More | ||||