Advertisement
LITB vs W
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 LITB is a Hold and W 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).
LITB’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileW’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- LITB’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- W’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.
LITB’s TA Score shows that 3 TA indicator(s) are bullish while W’s TA Score has 6 bullish TA indicator(s).
- LITB’s TA Score: 3 bullish, 5 bearish.
- W’s TA Score: 6 bullish, 4 bearish.
Price Growth
LITB (@Apparel/Footwear) experienced а -12.87% price change this week, while W (@Internet Retail) price change was +10.77% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Apparel/Footwear industry was +4.16%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +0.21%, and the average quarterly price growth was +8.44%.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Internet Retail industry was +0.92%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -5.35%, and the average quarterly price growth was +175.94%.
Reported Earning Dates
W is expected to report earnings on Feb 19, 2026.
Industries' Descriptions
@Apparel/Footwear (+4.16% weekly)Apparel/footwear might be slightly more ‘cyclical’ in the largely non-cyclical category of non-durables. While digital giants like Amazon have been rapidly expanding their presence, traditional clothing/footwear retailers have also been bulking up their online presence in recent years, to milk the burgeoning trend of online shopping among consumers across the globe. The apparel and footwear retail market was valued at around $ 360 billion in 2018, and this figure was expected to reach about $386 billion by 2020 (according to a Statista report). NIKE, Inc, V.F. Corporation and Under Armour, Inc. are some of the companies with the largest U.S. stock market caps in this segment.
@Internet Retail (+0.92% weekly)The internet retail industry includes companies that sell products and services through the Internet. With more and more consumers using online retailers, the companies have seen a big increase in the use of their services. Some of the companies in the group are focused on selling business-to-business products and services. Others sell business-to-consumer products and services. Internet retailers offer a wide variety of products like books, apparel, and electronics. Some companies even specialize in only one or two categories. One potentially critical factor for players to thrive in this space is the quality and speed of product delivery. This requires an investment in efficient distribution networks. Things like logistics are important factors in the success in the extremely competitive industry. For a company to stay relevant in the industry it must have effective pricing strategies and upgraded websites. The websites must be easy to navigate and engaging for customers. In addition to the revenues generated from straight sales, internet retailers can generate revenue from subscription fees and advertising. Amazon.com, Inc., Alibaba Group, and JD.com are some of the global leaders.
| LITB | W | LITB / W | |
| Capitalization | 48.3M | 14.6B | 0% |
| EBITDA | 1.42M | 124M | 1% |
| Gain YTD | 57.143 | 152.076 | 38% |
| P/E Ratio | 22.00 | N/A | - |
| Revenue | 231M | 12B | 2% |
| Total Cash | 15.9M | 1.38B | 1% |
| Total Debt | 8.45M | 3.75B | 0% |
LITB | W | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 84 | 85 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 100 Overvalued | 100 Overvalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 100 | 100 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 35 | 35 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 7 | 93 | |
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.
LITB's Valuation (100) in the Internet Retail industry is in the same range as W (100). This means that LITB’s stock grew similarly to W’s over the last 12 months.
LITB's Profit vs Risk Rating (100) in the Internet Retail industry is in the same range as W (100). This means that LITB’s stock grew similarly to W’s over the last 12 months.
LITB's SMR Rating (100) in the Internet Retail industry is in the same range as W (100). This means that LITB’s stock grew similarly to W’s over the last 12 months.
LITB's Price Growth Rating (35) in the Internet Retail industry is in the same range as W (35). This means that LITB’s stock grew similarly to W’s over the last 12 months.
LITB's P/E Growth Rating (7) in the Internet Retail industry is significantly better than the same rating for W (93). This means that LITB’s stock grew significantly faster than W’s over the last 12 months.
| LITB | W | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 88% | 2 days ago 85% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 83% | 2 days ago 80% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 85% | 2 days ago 88% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 87% | 2 days ago 90% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 85% | 2 days ago 82% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 81% | 2 days ago 81% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | 17 days ago 75% | 4 days ago 80% |
| Declines ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 87% | 10 days ago 85% |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 90% | 2 days ago 75% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 89% | 2 days ago 83% |
Advertisement
| 1 Day | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| ETFs / NAME | Price $ | Chg $ | Chg % |
| DBEZ | 55.51 | 0.53 | +0.97% |
| Xtrackers MSCI Eurozone Hedged Eq ETF | |||
| EATZ | 25.21 | 0.18 | +0.72% |
| AdvisorShares Restaurant ETF | |||
| IVOG | 120.83 | 0.48 | +0.40% |
| Vanguard S&P Mid-Cap 400 Growth ETF | |||
| AGGH | 20.85 | 0.05 | +0.24% |
| Simplify Aggregate Bond ETF | |||
| FLCG | 33.05 | -0.06 | -0.18% |
| Federated Hermes MDT Large Cap Gr ETF | |||
LITB and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that LITB and BZUN have been poorly correlated (+22% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that LITB and BZUN's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To LITB | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LITB | 100% | -6.05% | ||
| BZUN - LITB | 22% Poorly correlated | -2.52% | ||
| CPNG - LITB | 21% Poorly correlated | +0.63% | ||
| RERE - LITB | 21% Poorly correlated | +1.45% | ||
| JMIA - LITB | 21% Poorly correlated | -3.98% | ||
| W - LITB | 21% Poorly correlated | +1.07% | ||
More | ||||
W and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, W has been loosely correlated with CVNA. These tickers have moved in lockstep 65% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if W jumps, then CVNA could also see price increases.