SECYF vs TMRAF
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 SECYF is a Hold and TMRAF 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).
SECYF’s FA Score shows that 3 FA rating(s) are green whileTMRAF’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- SECYF’s FA Score: 3 green, 2 red.
- TMRAF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
Price Growth
SECYF (@Environmental Services) experienced а -3.04% price change this week, while TMRAF (@Environmental Services) price change was -5.27% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Environmental Services industry was -5.29%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -2.11%, and the average quarterly price growth was -0.95%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Environmental Services (-5.29% weekly)Environmental Services includes companies that collect and dispose of hazardous and non-hazardous waste. Their services include removal of toxic waste from soil, removing medical waste etc. Some companies also operate incinerators, sewerage systems, waste treatment plants, and landfills. Demand for waste management is likely to rise with increasing urbanization/industrialization. Waste Management, Inc., Republic Services, Inc., Waste Connections, Inc. and Tetra Tech, Inc. are some of the major companies in this business.
| SECYF | TMRAF | SECYF / TMRAF | |
| Capitalization | 1.53B | 4.52B | 34% |
| EBITDA | 540M | 2.6B | 21% |
| Gain YTD | 66.056 | 17.452 | 378% |
| P/E Ratio | 11.75 | 43.67 | 27% |
| Revenue | 7.86B | 13.8B | 57% |
| Total Cash | 27M | 642M | 4% |
| Total Debt | 1.09B | 4.42B | 25% |
SECYF | TMRAF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 27 | 25 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 31 Undervalued | 90 Overvalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 9 | 90 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 19 | 72 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 37 | 48 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 97 | 57 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 50 | 75 |
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.
SECYF's Valuation (31) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for TMRAF (90). This means that SECYF’s stock grew somewhat faster than TMRAF’s over the last 12 months.
SECYF's Profit vs Risk Rating (9) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for TMRAF (90). This means that SECYF’s stock grew significantly faster than TMRAF’s over the last 12 months.
SECYF's SMR Rating (19) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for TMRAF (72). This means that SECYF’s stock grew somewhat faster than TMRAF’s over the last 12 months.
SECYF's Price Growth Rating (37) in the null industry is in the same range as TMRAF (48). This means that SECYF’s stock grew similarly to TMRAF’s over the last 12 months.
TMRAF's P/E Growth Rating (57) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for SECYF (97). This means that TMRAF’s stock grew somewhat faster than SECYF’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 (%) |
SECYF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that SECYF and ECLMF have been poorly correlated (+6% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that SECYF and ECLMF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To SECYF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SECYF | 100% | -1.13% | ||
| ECLMF - SECYF | 6% Poorly correlated | -54.37% | ||
| TMRAF - SECYF | 5% Poorly correlated | -5.27% | ||
| SCPJ - SECYF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| GCEI - SECYF | -0% Poorly correlated | -0.34% | ||
| EAATF - SECYF | -2% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
TMRAF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that TMRAF and VEOEY have been poorly correlated (+17% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that TMRAF and VEOEY's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To TMRAF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TMRAF | 100% | -5.27% | ||
| VEOEY - TMRAF | 17% Poorly correlated | +0.27% | ||
| VEOEF - TMRAF | 14% Poorly correlated | +2.01% | ||
| ECLMF - TMRAF | 7% Poorly correlated | -54.37% | ||
| TMRAY - TMRAF | 6% Poorly correlated | +2.70% | ||
| DGWR - TMRAF | 6% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||