Advertisement
KMBIF vs MCHVF
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 KMBIF is a Hold and MCHVF 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).
KMBIF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileMCHVF’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- KMBIF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- MCHVF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 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.
KMBIF’s TA Score shows that 3 TA indicator(s) are bullish while MCHVF’s TA Score has 5 bullish TA indicator(s).
- KMBIF’s TA Score: 3 bullish, 1 bearish.
- MCHVF’s TA Score: 5 bullish, 3 bearish.
Price Growth
KMBIF (@Casinos/Gaming) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while MCHVF (@Casinos/Gaming) price change was +18.64% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Casinos/Gaming industry was +0.03%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +10.59%, and the average quarterly price growth was +21.66%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Casinos/Gaming (+0.03% weekly)Casinos/Gaming includes companies that operate casinos, gaming services, horse racing and harness racing facilities. Think Las Vegas Sands Corp., MGM Resorts International and Wynn Resorts, Ltd. In periods of strong economic growth, consumers tend to spend on discretionary/leisure activities like gambling or games; but consumption is likely to slow down when there’s economic sluggishness.
| KMBIF | MCHVF | KMBIF / MCHVF | |
| Capitalization | 575M | 5.04B | 11% |
| EBITDA | 62.6M | -1.06B | -6% |
| Gain YTD | 49.582 | 100.000 | 50% |
| P/E Ratio | 23.87 | N/A | - |
| Revenue | 173M | 7.92B | 2% |
| Total Cash | 68.7M | 6.95B | 1% |
| Total Debt | 20.4M | 30.6B | 0% |
KMBIF | MCHVF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 59 Fair valued | 91 Overvalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 60 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 75 | 100 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 39 | 37 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 6 | 72 | |
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.
KMBIF's Valuation (59) in the null industry is in the same range as MCHVF (91). This means that KMBIF’s stock grew similarly to MCHVF’s over the last 12 months.
MCHVF's Profit vs Risk Rating (60) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for KMBIF (100). This means that MCHVF’s stock grew somewhat faster than KMBIF’s over the last 12 months.
KMBIF's SMR Rating (75) in the null industry is in the same range as MCHVF (100). This means that KMBIF’s stock grew similarly to MCHVF’s over the last 12 months.
MCHVF's Price Growth Rating (37) in the null industry is in the same range as KMBIF (39). This means that MCHVF’s stock grew similarly to KMBIF’s over the last 12 months.
KMBIF's P/E Growth Rating (6) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for MCHVF (72). This means that KMBIF’s stock grew significantly faster than MCHVF’s over the last 12 months.
| KMBIF | MCHVF | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | N/A | 3 days ago 66% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 43% | 3 days ago 64% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | N/A | 3 days ago 51% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 52% | 3 days ago 66% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 44% | 3 days ago 55% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 45% | 3 days ago 56% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Declines ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | N/A | 3 days ago 58% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 45% | 3 days ago 56% |
Advertisement
KMBIF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that KMBIF and PYTCF have been poorly correlated (+33% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that KMBIF and PYTCF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To KMBIF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| KMBIF | 100% | N/A | ||
| PYTCF - KMBIF | 33% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| GRKZF - KMBIF | 0% Poorly correlated | +0.82% | ||
| LFDJF - KMBIF | -1% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| MCHVF - KMBIF | -1% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| GMVHY - KMBIF | -2% Poorly correlated | +1.25% | ||
More | ||||
MCHVF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, MCHVF has been loosely correlated with SKYZF. These tickers have moved in lockstep 34% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if MCHVF jumps, then SKYZF could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To MCHVF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MCHVF | 100% | N/A | ||
| SKYZF - MCHVF | 34% Loosely correlated | N/A | ||
| SCHYF - MCHVF | 30% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| GXYEF - MCHVF | 15% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| GXYYY - MCHVF | 9% Poorly correlated | -0.95% | ||
| MCHVY - MCHVF | 8% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||