SVIN vs TSGTY
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 SVIN is a Hold and TSGTY 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).
SVIN’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileTSGTY’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).
- SVIN’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- TSGTY’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
Price Growth
SVIN (@Beverages: Alcoholic) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while TSGTY (@Beverages: Alcoholic) price change was -8.79% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Beverages: Alcoholic industry was -0.01%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +0.07%, and the average quarterly price growth was -11.06%.
Reported Earning Dates
TSGTY is expected to report earnings on Apr 01, 2025.
Industries' Descriptions
@Beverages: Alcoholic (-0.01% weekly)The alcoholic beverage market includes beer, wine, and spirits. From $230 billion in 2015, the industry has grown to around $250 billion by 2019. In recent years, alcoholic beverage makers have been looking to expand distribution and purchase channels, such as through online stores (e.g. e-commerce platform Drizly) and convenience stores. Anheuser-Busch In Bev and Diageo are major global alcoholic beverage companies, while U.S.-owned companies include Constellation Brands and Brown-Forman Corp. among several others.
| SVIN | TSGTY | SVIN / TSGTY | |
| Capitalization | 32.9M | 15.7B | 0% |
| EBITDA | -4.58M | 5.47B | -0% |
| Gain YTD | 0.000 | -15.500 | - |
| P/E Ratio | N/A | 20.88 | - |
| Revenue | 52.5M | 33.7B | 0% |
| Total Cash | 1.63M | 22.8B | 0% |
| Total Debt | 121M | 368M | 33% |
SVIN | TSGTY | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 8 | 80 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 64 Fair valued | 21 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 94 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 3 | 56 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 93 | 49 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 64 | 69 | |
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.
TSGTY's Valuation (21) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for SVIN (64). This means that TSGTY’s stock grew somewhat faster than SVIN’s over the last 12 months.
TSGTY's Profit vs Risk Rating (94) in the null industry is in the same range as SVIN (100). This means that TSGTY’s stock grew similarly to SVIN’s over the last 12 months.
SVIN's SMR Rating (3) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for TSGTY (56). This means that SVIN’s stock grew somewhat faster than TSGTY’s over the last 12 months.
TSGTY's Price Growth Rating (49) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for SVIN (93). This means that TSGTY’s stock grew somewhat faster than SVIN’s over the last 12 months.
SVIN's P/E Growth Rating (64) in the null industry is in the same range as TSGTY (69). This means that SVIN’s stock grew similarly to TSGTY’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 (%) |
SVIN and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that SVIN and CRHKF have been poorly correlated (+33% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that SVIN and CRHKF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To SVIN | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SVIN | 100% | N/A | ||
| CRHKF - SVIN | 33% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| TBVPF - SVIN | 16% Poorly correlated | +0.76% | ||
| STBFY - SVIN | 12% Poorly correlated | +1.26% | ||
| TSGTY - SVIN | 11% Poorly correlated | -11.83% | ||
| TBVPY - SVIN | 10% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
TSGTY and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, TSGTY has been loosely correlated with CRHKY. These tickers have moved in lockstep 48% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if TSGTY jumps, then CRHKY could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To TSGTY | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TSGTY | 100% | -11.83% | ||
| CRHKY - TSGTY | 48% Loosely correlated | +1.67% | ||
| PRNDY - TSGTY | 31% Poorly correlated | +4.97% | ||
| HEINY - TSGTY | 24% Poorly correlated | +1.28% | ||
| REMYY - TSGTY | 20% Poorly correlated | +7.32% | ||
| DEO - TSGTY | 20% Poorly correlated | +4.60% | ||
More | ||||