I think you mean HbA1c? That's a different test entirely.
Fingerprick testing tests the level of blood glucose in your capilliary blood at the moment of testing. It doesn't tell you what was going on 20 minutes ago or where you might be in 20 minutes time.
HbA1c doesn't measure blood glucose directly. Instead the test counts the number of glycated red blood cells - the ones that at some point have had a glucose molecule attached to their haemoglobin. Red blood cells live about three months. So from the proportion of cells, it's possible to estimate what the level of glucose was for those three months. This also means that the test is heavily skewed towards recent weeks, because many of the cells that were around three months ago have already died and been replaced.
HbA1c can be inaccurate, for example for people with anaemia, because they don't have the expected number of red blood cells. However it's currently thought to be the best test available for showing you what's going on over the short to medium term, as far as blood glucose is concerned.
You can't really read across from fingerprick testing to HbA1c, because of them measuring different things in different ways. And with fingerprick testing, you only have the snapshot - no clue as to what happens when you don't test, which is almost all of the time. You might get an indication about how well or how badly you're doing but not much more than that.
To be complete - constant glucose monitors don't test blood at all. They measure glucose in the interstitial fluid and then uses an algorithm to estimate what the blood glucose value is likely to be. Interstitial fluid generally lags blood glucose by about 15 minutes, so there can be inaccuracies in changing circumstances, for example.