AFMJF vs ILHMF
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 AFMJF is a Hold and ILHMF 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).
AFMJF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileILHMF’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- AFMJF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- ILHMF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 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.
AFMJF’s TA Score shows that 4 TA indicator(s) are bullish while ILHMF’s TA Score has 2 bullish TA indicator(s).
- AFMJF’s TA Score: 4 bullish, 5 bearish.
- ILHMF’s TA Score: 2 bullish, 6 bearish.
Price Growth
AFMJF (@Other Metals/Minerals) experienced а -3.70% price change this week, while ILHMF (@Other Metals/Minerals) price change was +0.94% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Other Metals/Minerals industry was -3.39%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -4.28%, and the average quarterly price growth was -3.20%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Other Metals/Minerals (-3.39% weekly)The category includes companies that explore for, mine and extract metals, such as copper, diamonds, nickel, cobalt ore, lead, zinc and uranium. BHP, Rio Tinto and Southern Copper Corporation are major players in this space.
| AFMJF | ILHMF | AFMJF / ILHMF | |
| Capitalization | 980M | 9.38M | 10,451% |
| EBITDA | 161M | 31.3K | 514,377% |
| Gain YTD | 15.236 | -69.040 | -22% |
| P/E Ratio | 13.14 | 2.07 | 636% |
| Revenue | 328M | 0 | - |
| Total Cash | 3.2K | 6.22M | 0% |
| Total Debt | 12.1M | 428K | 2,827% |
AFMJF | ILHMF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 54 | 19 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 3 Undervalued | 37 Fair valued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 36 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 42 | 94 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 54 | 51 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 91 | 55 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 95 | 95 |
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.
AFMJF's Valuation (3) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for ILHMF (37). This means that AFMJF’s stock grew somewhat faster than ILHMF’s over the last 12 months.
AFMJF's Profit vs Risk Rating (36) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for ILHMF (100). This means that AFMJF’s stock grew somewhat faster than ILHMF’s over the last 12 months.
AFMJF's SMR Rating (42) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for ILHMF (94). This means that AFMJF’s stock grew somewhat faster than ILHMF’s over the last 12 months.
ILHMF's Price Growth Rating (51) in the null industry is in the same range as AFMJF (54). This means that ILHMF’s stock grew similarly to AFMJF’s over the last 12 months.
ILHMF's P/E Growth Rating (55) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for AFMJF (91). This means that ILHMF’s stock grew somewhat faster than AFMJF’s over the last 12 months.
| AFMJF | ILHMF | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 79% | N/A |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 89% | 2 days ago 88% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 81% | 2 days ago 90% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | N/A | 2 days ago 90% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 77% | 2 days ago 90% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 75% | 2 days ago 90% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | 24 days ago 80% | 3 days ago 79% |
| Declines ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 80% | 13 days ago 89% |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 80% | 2 days ago 90% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 71% | N/A |
AFMJF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, AFMJF has been loosely correlated with LYSDY. These tickers have moved in lockstep 37% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if AFMJF jumps, then LYSDY could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To AFMJF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| AFMJF | 100% | +1.81% | ||
| LYSDY - AFMJF | 37% Loosely correlated | -2.04% | ||
| LYSCF - AFMJF | 31% Poorly correlated | -1.74% | ||
| RIO - AFMJF | 29% Poorly correlated | +0.33% | ||
| BHP - AFMJF | 28% Poorly correlated | -0.22% | ||
| BDNNY - AFMJF | 28% Poorly correlated | -1.56% | ||
More | ||||
ILHMF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that ILHMF and RGLSF have been poorly correlated (+28% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that ILHMF and RGLSF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To ILHMF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ILHMF | 100% | -23.08% | ||
| RGLSF - ILHMF | 28% Poorly correlated | -2.22% | ||
| EROSF - ILHMF | 24% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| AFMJF - ILHMF | 21% Poorly correlated | +1.81% | ||
| HUSIF - ILHMF | 15% Poorly correlated | -0.88% | ||
| IMIMF - ILHMF | 11% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||