SMGKF vs SULZF
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 SMGKF is a Hold and SULZF 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).
SMGKF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileSULZF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).
- SMGKF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- SULZF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
Price Growth
SMGKF (@Industrial Machinery) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while SULZF (@Industrial Machinery) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Industrial Machinery industry was -2.49%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -0.83%, and the average quarterly price growth was -1.09%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Industrial Machinery (-2.49% weekly)The industry makes and maintains machines for consumers, the industry, and most other companies. While it has traditionally been categorized as heavy industry, some smaller companies are also branching into the light category. The industry is pivotal in providing the equipment for production in businesses like agriculture, mining, industry and construction, gas, electricity and water utilities. It also supplies supporting equipment for almost all sectors of the economy, such as equipment for heating, and air conditioning of buildings. Illinois Tool Works Inc., Parker-Hannifin Corporation and Rockwell Automation Inc are some of the major U.S. companies operating in this industry.
| SMGKF | SULZF | SMGKF / SULZF | |
| Capitalization | 7.63B | 3.34B | 229% |
| EBITDA | 317M | 412M | 77% |
| Gain YTD | 0.000 | 0.000 | - |
| P/E Ratio | 588.24 | 14.25 | 4,129% |
| Revenue | 2.87B | 3.27B | 88% |
| Total Cash | 795M | 1.16B | 69% |
| Total Debt | 1.21B | 1.46B | 83% |
SMGKF | SULZF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 28 Undervalued | 22 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 94 | 70 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 93 | 55 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 54 | 46 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 51 | 35 | |
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.
SULZF's Valuation (22) in the null industry is in the same range as SMGKF (28). This means that SULZF’s stock grew similarly to SMGKF’s over the last 12 months.
SULZF's Profit vs Risk Rating (70) in the null industry is in the same range as SMGKF (94). This means that SULZF’s stock grew similarly to SMGKF’s over the last 12 months.
SULZF's SMR Rating (55) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for SMGKF (93). This means that SULZF’s stock grew somewhat faster than SMGKF’s over the last 12 months.
SULZF's Price Growth Rating (46) in the null industry is in the same range as SMGKF (54). This means that SULZF’s stock grew similarly to SMGKF’s over the last 12 months.
SULZF's P/E Growth Rating (35) in the null industry is in the same range as SMGKF (51). This means that SULZF’s stock grew similarly to SMGKF’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 (%) |
SMGKF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that SMGKF and VLNSF have been poorly correlated (+26% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that SMGKF and VLNSF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To SMGKF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SMGKF | 100% | N/A | ||
| VLNSF - SMGKF | 26% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| ATCD - SMGKF | 26% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| PFFVF - SMGKF | 22% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| MCRUF - SMGKF | 21% Poorly correlated | -2.09% | ||
| SULZF - SMGKF | 19% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
SULZF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that SULZF and MCRUF have been poorly correlated (+33% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that SULZF and MCRUF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To SULZF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SULZF | 100% | N/A | ||
| MCRUF - SULZF | 33% Poorly correlated | -2.09% | ||
| DNIYY - SULZF | 20% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| SMGKF - SULZF | 19% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| SPXSY - SULZF | 9% Poorly correlated | -2.50% | ||
| TOMZ - SULZF | 5% Poorly correlated | +1.79% | ||
More | ||||