Advertisement
LVRLF vs MCUJF
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 LVRLF is a Hold and MCUJF 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).
LVRLF’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whileMCUJF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).
- LVRLF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
- MCUJF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 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.
LVRLF’s TA Score shows that 2 TA indicator(s) are bullish while MCUJF’s TA Score has 3 bullish TA indicator(s).
- LVRLF’s TA Score: 2 bullish, 4 bearish.
- MCUJF’s TA Score: 3 bullish, 4 bearish.
Price Growth
LVRLF (@Pharmaceuticals: Other) experienced а -6.00% price change this week, while MCUJF (@Pharmaceuticals: Other) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Pharmaceuticals: Other industry was +2.02%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +2.94%, and the average quarterly price growth was +92.60%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Pharmaceuticals: Other (+2.02% weekly)Pharmaceuticals (Other) comprise companies that are involved in the discovery, development or manufacturing of therapeutic and preventative medicines. They often collaborate with or acquire other pharmaceutical/healthcare firms. Examples of companies in this segment include Bausch Health Companies Inc., Icon Plc and Perrigo Company Plc.
| LVRLF | MCUJF | LVRLF / MCUJF | |
| Capitalization | 18.6M | 11.3M | 165% |
| EBITDA | -2.57M | 3.24M | -79% |
| Gain YTD | -6.000 | 47.000 | -13% |
| P/E Ratio | N/A | 12.53 | - |
| Revenue | 4.45M | 23M | 19% |
| Total Cash | 746K | 4.93M | 15% |
| Total Debt | 5.81M | 777K | 748% |
LVRLF | MCUJF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 98 Overvalued | 62 Fair valued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 86 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 100 | 93 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 94 | 37 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 100 | 29 | |
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.
MCUJF's Valuation (62) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for LVRLF (98). This means that MCUJF’s stock grew somewhat faster than LVRLF’s over the last 12 months.
MCUJF's Profit vs Risk Rating (86) in the null industry is in the same range as LVRLF (100). This means that MCUJF’s stock grew similarly to LVRLF’s over the last 12 months.
MCUJF's SMR Rating (93) in the null industry is in the same range as LVRLF (100). This means that MCUJF’s stock grew similarly to LVRLF’s over the last 12 months.
MCUJF's Price Growth Rating (37) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for LVRLF (94). This means that MCUJF’s stock grew somewhat faster than LVRLF’s over the last 12 months.
MCUJF's P/E Growth Rating (29) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for LVRLF (100). This means that MCUJF’s stock grew significantly faster than LVRLF’s over the last 12 months.
| LVRLF | MCUJF | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | N/A | 4 days ago 78% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 90% | 4 days ago 80% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 90% | 4 days ago 66% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 73% | 4 days ago 69% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 90% | 4 days ago 62% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 90% | 4 days ago 62% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | 7 days ago 72% | N/A |
| Declines ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 90% | N/A |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | N/A | 4 days ago 85% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 90% | 4 days ago 58% |
Advertisement
LVRLF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that LVRLF and MCUJF have been poorly correlated (+16% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that LVRLF and MCUJF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To LVRLF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LVRLF | 100% | -8.29% | ||
| MCUJF - LVRLF | 16% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| MEDIF - LVRLF | 7% Poorly correlated | -3.53% | ||
| KHTRF - LVRLF | 6% Poorly correlated | +4.50% | ||
| KSPHF - LVRLF | 5% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| LBTSF - LVRLF | 3% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
MCUJF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that MCUJF and PAIOF have been poorly correlated (+21% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that MCUJF and PAIOF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To MCUJF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MCUJF | 100% | N/A | ||
| PAIOF - MCUJF | 21% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| LVRLF - MCUJF | 18% Poorly correlated | -8.29% | ||
| MVMDF - MCUJF | 11% Poorly correlated | -5.04% | ||
| MGWFF - MCUJF | 9% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| JUSHF - MCUJF | 7% Poorly correlated | +5.38% | ||
More | ||||