CGLCF
Price
$0.21
Change
-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Updated
Nov 18 closing price
Capitalization
30.56M
Intraday BUY SELL Signals
IMRFF
Price
$0.08
Change
-$0.01 (-11.11%)
Updated
Nov 17 closing price
Capitalization
2.71M
Intraday BUY SELL Signals
Interact to see
Advertisement

CGLCF vs IMRFF

Header iconCGLCF vs IMRFF Comparison
Open Charts CGLCF vs IMRFFBanner chart's image
Cassiar Gold
Price$0.21
Change-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Volume$347.33K
Capitalization30.56M
iMetal Resources
Price$0.08
Change-$0.01 (-11.11%)
Volume$2K
Capitalization2.71M
CGLCF vs IMRFF Comparison Chart in %
CGLCF
Daily Signal:
Gain/Loss:
IMRFF
Daily Signal:
Gain/Loss:
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
CGLCF vs. IMRFF commentary
Nov 20, 2025

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 CGLCF is a Hold and IMRFF is a Hold.

Interact to see
Advertisement
COMPARISON
Comparison
Nov 20, 2025
Stock price -- (CGLCF: $0.21 vs. IMRFF: $0.08)
Brand notoriety: CGLCF and IMRFF are both not notable
Both companies represent the Precious Metals industry
Current volume relative to the 65-day Moving Average: CGLCF: 31% vs. IMRFF: 11%
Market capitalization -- CGLCF: $30.56M vs. IMRFF: $2.71M
CGLCF [@Precious Metals] is valued at $30.56M. IMRFF’s [@Precious Metals] market capitalization is $2.71M. The market cap for tickers in the [@Precious Metals] industry ranges from $109.2B to $0. The average market capitalization across the [@Precious Metals] industry is $3.31B.

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).

CGLCF’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whileIMRFF’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).

  • CGLCF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
  • IMRFF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
According to our system of comparison, CGLCF is a better buy in the long-term than IMRFF.

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.

CGLCF’s TA Score shows that 4 TA indicator(s) are bullish while IMRFF’s TA Score has 3 bullish TA indicator(s).

  • CGLCF’s TA Score: 4 bullish, 5 bearish.
  • IMRFF’s TA Score: 3 bullish, 6 bearish.
According to our system of comparison, CGLCF is a better buy in the short-term than IMRFF.

Price Growth

CGLCF (@Precious Metals) experienced а -0.24% price change this week, while IMRFF (@Precious Metals) price change was -37.48% for the same time period.

The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Precious Metals industry was -0.06%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -4.58%, and the average quarterly price growth was +67.50%.

Industries' Descriptions

@Precious Metals (-0.06% weekly)

The Precious Metals industry is engaged in exploring/mining metals that are considered to be rare and/or have a high economic value. Popular precious metals include gold, platinum and silver - all three of which are largely used in jewelry, art and coinage alongwith having some industrial uses as well. Precious metals used in industrial processes include iridium, (used in specialty alloys), and palladium ( used in electronics and chemical applications). Historically, precious metals have traded at much higher prices than common industrial metals. Newmont Goldcorp Corp, Barrick Gold Corp and Freeport-McMoRan are few of the major precious metals producing companies in the U.S.

SUMMARIES
Loading...
FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
CGLCF($30.6M) has a higher market cap than IMRFF($2.71M). CGLCF YTD gains are higher at: 59.615 vs. IMRFF (-58.507). IMRFF has higher annual earnings (EBITDA): -1.57M vs. CGLCF (-7.75M). CGLCF has more cash in the bank: 1.44M vs. IMRFF (704K). CGLCF (0) and IMRFF (0) have equivalent revenues.
CGLCFIMRFFCGLCF / IMRFF
Capitalization30.6M2.71M1,128%
EBITDA-7.75M-1.57M493%
Gain YTD59.615-58.507-102%
P/E RatioN/AN/A-
Revenue00-
Total Cash1.44M704K205%
Total Debt0N/A-
FUNDAMENTALS RATINGS
CGLCF vs IMRFF: Fundamental Ratings
CGLCF
IMRFF
OUTLOOK RATING
1..100
2064
VALUATION
overvalued / fair valued / undervalued
1..100
49
Fair valued
48
Fair valued
PROFIT vs RISK RATING
1..100
100100
SMR RATING
1..100
9494
PRICE GROWTH RATING
1..100
4096
P/E GROWTH RATING
1..100
100100
SEASONALITY SCORE
1..100
9050

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.

IMRFF's Valuation (48) in the null industry is in the same range as CGLCF (49). This means that IMRFF’s stock grew similarly to CGLCF’s over the last 12 months.

IMRFF's Profit vs Risk Rating (100) in the null industry is in the same range as CGLCF (100). This means that IMRFF’s stock grew similarly to CGLCF’s over the last 12 months.

IMRFF's SMR Rating (94) in the null industry is in the same range as CGLCF (94). This means that IMRFF’s stock grew similarly to CGLCF’s over the last 12 months.

CGLCF's Price Growth Rating (40) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for IMRFF (96). This means that CGLCF’s stock grew somewhat faster than IMRFF’s over the last 12 months.

CGLCF's P/E Growth Rating (100) in the null industry is in the same range as IMRFF (100). This means that CGLCF’s stock grew similarly to IMRFF’s over the last 12 months.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
CGLCFIMRFF
RSI
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bullish Trend 1 day ago
73%
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
87%
Bullish Trend 1 day ago
60%
Momentum
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
86%
Bearish Trend 1 day ago
79%
MACD
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
82%
Bearish Trend 1 day ago
83%
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
78%
Bearish Trend 1 day ago
79%
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
80%
Bearish Trend 1 day ago
82%
Advances
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
83%
N/A
Declines
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 15 days ago
85%
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
88%
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
90%
Bullish Trend 1 day ago
76%
Aroon
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
90%
Bearish Trend 1 day ago
81%
View a ticker or compare two or three
Interact to see
Advertisement
CGLCF
Daily Signal:
Gain/Loss:
IMRFF
Daily Signal:
Gain/Loss:
Interesting Tickers
1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
1 Day
STOCK / NAMEPrice $Chg $Chg %
JTTRY17.05N/A
N/A
Japan Airport Terminal
SILDF5.09N/A
N/A
Sintokogio Ltd.
GAMN0.09N/A
N/A
Great American Food Chain, Inc. (The)
SEOVF0.10N/A
-0.62%
SERNOVA BIOTHERAPEUTICS INC.
TYNPF29.90-1.75
-5.52%
Nippon Sanso Holdings Corp.