Advertisement
JGCCY vs KLRGF
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 JGCCY is a Hold and KLRGF 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).
JGCCY’s FA Score shows that 2 FA rating(s) are green whileKLRGF’s FA Score has 2 green FA rating(s).
- JGCCY’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
- KLRGF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
Price Growth
JGCCY (@Engineering & Construction) experienced а +16.44% price change this week, while KLRGF (@Engineering & Construction) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Engineering & Construction industry was +1.19%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +10.31%, and the average quarterly price growth was +10.18%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Engineering & Construction (+1.19% weekly)Engineering & Construction includes companies that engage in non-residential construction and contract services, including ventilation, heating and air conditioning (HVAC) services. The level/value of construction & engineering activity is one of the potentially relevant indicators of the health of businesses, and hence of the overall economy. Some of the large-cap U.S. companies in this industry include Jacobs Engineering Group Inc,, AECOM and Quanta Services, Inc.
| JGCCY | KLRGF | JGCCY / KLRGF | |
| Capitalization | 2.07B | 1.46B | 142% |
| EBITDA | 8.5B | N/A | - |
| Gain YTD | 6.897 | 14.489 | 48% |
| P/E Ratio | 18.46 | 8.03 | 230% |
| Revenue | 836B | N/A | - |
| Total Cash | 357B | N/A | - |
| Total Debt | 34.7B | N/A | - |
JGCCY | KLRGF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 87 | 94 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 62 Fair valued | 27 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 16 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 3 | 59 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 58 | 40 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 19 | 67 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 50 | 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.
KLRGF's Valuation (27) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for JGCCY (62). This means that KLRGF’s stock grew somewhat faster than JGCCY’s over the last 12 months.
KLRGF's Profit vs Risk Rating (16) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for JGCCY (100). This means that KLRGF’s stock grew significantly faster than JGCCY’s over the last 12 months.
JGCCY's SMR Rating (3) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for KLRGF (59). This means that JGCCY’s stock grew somewhat faster than KLRGF’s over the last 12 months.
KLRGF's Price Growth Rating (40) in the null industry is in the same range as JGCCY (58). This means that KLRGF’s stock grew similarly to JGCCY’s over the last 12 months.
JGCCY's P/E Growth Rating (19) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for KLRGF (67). This means that JGCCY’s stock grew somewhat faster than KLRGF’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 (%) |
Advertisement
JGCCY and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that JGCCY and YITYY have been poorly correlated (+29% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that JGCCY and YITYY's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To JGCCY | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| JGCCY | 100% | N/A | ||
| YITYY - JGCCY | 29% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| JGCCF - JGCCY | 28% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| KLRGF - JGCCY | 25% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| HOCFF - JGCCY | 7% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| EFGSY - JGCCY | 3% Poorly correlated | -3.97% | ||
More | ||||
KLRGF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that KLRGF and AEGXF have been poorly correlated (+26% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that KLRGF and AEGXF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To KLRGF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| KLRGF | 100% | N/A | ||
| AEGXF - KLRGF | 26% Poorly correlated | +0.50% | ||
| JGCCY - KLRGF | 25% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| BFLBY - KLRGF | 24% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| KIERF - KLRGF | 20% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| KAJMY - KLRGF | 6% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||