CGLCF
Price
$0.17
Change
-$0.01 (-5.56%)
Updated
Sep 25 closing price
Capitalization
26.1M
IMRFF
Price
$0.17
Change
+$0.01 (+6.25%)
Updated
Sep 25 closing price
Capitalization
1.71M
Interact to see
Advertisement

CGLCF vs IMRFF

Header iconCGLCF vs IMRFF Comparison
Open Charts CGLCF vs IMRFFBanner chart's image
Cassiar Gold
Price$0.17
Change-$0.01 (-5.56%)
Volume$349.2K
Capitalization26.1M
iMetal Resources
Price$0.17
Change+$0.01 (+6.25%)
Volume$5K
Capitalization1.71M
CGLCF vs IMRFF Comparison Chart in %
Loading...
CGLCF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
IMRFF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
CGLCF vs. IMRFF commentary
Sep 26, 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
Sep 26, 2025
Stock price -- (CGLCF: $0.17 vs. IMRFF: $0.17)
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: 109% vs. IMRFF: 37%
Market capitalization -- CGLCF: $26.1M vs. IMRFF: $1.71M
CGLCF [@Precious Metals] is valued at $26.1M. IMRFF’s [@Precious Metals] market capitalization is $1.71M. The market cap for tickers in the [@Precious Metals] industry ranges from $102.94B to $0. The average market capitalization across the [@Precious Metals] industry is $3.17B.

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, both CGLCF and IMRFF are a bad buy in the long-term.

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 4 bullish TA indicator(s).

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

Price Growth

CGLCF (@Precious Metals) experienced а -0.26% price change this week, while IMRFF (@Precious Metals) price change was -14.14% for the same time period.

The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Precious Metals industry was +3.57%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +27.91%, and the average quarterly price growth was +6141.35%.

Industries' Descriptions

@Precious Metals (+3.57% 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($26.1M) has a higher market cap than IMRFF($1.71M). CGLCF YTD gains are higher at: 34.269 vs. IMRFF (-15.423). IMRFF has higher annual earnings (EBITDA): -1.88M vs. CGLCF (-7.75M). CGLCF has more cash in the bank: 1.44M vs. IMRFF (43.2K). CGLCF (0) and IMRFF (0) have equivalent revenues.
CGLCFIMRFFCGLCF / IMRFF
Capitalization26.1M1.71M1,525%
EBITDA-7.75M-1.88M411%
Gain YTD34.269-15.423-222%
P/E RatioN/AN/A-
Revenue00-
Total Cash1.44M43.2K3,333%
Total Debt0N/A-
FUNDAMENTALS RATINGS
CGLCF vs IMRFF: Fundamental Ratings
CGLCF
IMRFF
OUTLOOK RATING
1..100
7779
VALUATION
overvalued / fair valued / undervalued
1..100
49
Fair valued
49
Fair valued
PROFIT vs RISK RATING
1..100
100100
SMR RATING
1..100
9697
PRICE GROWTH RATING
1..100
4642
P/E GROWTH RATING
1..100
100100
SEASONALITY SCORE
1..100
5050

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.

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

CGLCF's Profit vs Risk 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.

CGLCF's SMR Rating (96) in the null industry is in the same range as IMRFF (97). This means that CGLCF’s stock grew similarly to IMRFF’s over the last 12 months.

IMRFF's Price Growth Rating (42) in the null industry is in the same range as CGLCF (46). This means that IMRFF’s stock grew similarly to CGLCF’s over the last 12 months.

IMRFF's P/E Growth 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.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
CGLCFIMRFF
RSI
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
88%
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
70%
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
81%
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
64%
Momentum
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
90%
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
81%
MACD
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
87%
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
72%
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
89%
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
80%
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
79%
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
62%
Advances
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 16 days ago
82%
Bullish Trend 8 days ago
64%
Declines
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
87%
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
86%
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
87%
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
71%
Aroon
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
90%
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
77%
View a ticker or compare two or three
Interact to see
Advertisement
CGLCF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
IMRFF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
Interesting Tickers
1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
1 Day
STOCK / NAMEPrice $Chg $Chg %
JROOF0.08N/A
+5.43%
JERICHO ENERGY VENTURES INC.
RNSDF36.17N/A
N/A
Renault SA
NFPC17.02N/A
N/A
Northfield Precision Instrument Corp.
IPGDF3.15N/A
N/A
IGO Ltd
SSILF0.12N/A
N/A
Sa Sa International Holdings Ltd.

CGLCF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, CGLCF has been loosely correlated with STLRF. These tickers have moved in lockstep 37% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if CGLCF jumps, then STLRF could also see price increases.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To CGLCF
1D Price
Change %
CGLCF100%
-0.34%
STLRF - CGLCF
37%
Loosely correlated
+2.70%
NSUPF - CGLCF
34%
Loosely correlated
+2.86%
PAAS - CGLCF
31%
Poorly correlated
+1.13%
MAUTF - CGLCF
30%
Poorly correlated
-0.20%
WPM - CGLCF
29%
Poorly correlated
+1.94%
More

IMRFF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that IMRFF and PMDRF have been poorly correlated (+23% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that IMRFF and PMDRF's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To IMRFF
1D Price
Change %
IMRFF100%
+4.94%
PMDRF - IMRFF
23%
Poorly correlated
N/A
MJGCF - IMRFF
23%
Poorly correlated
+4.67%
ZIJMF - IMRFF
3%
Poorly correlated
+2.37%
CGLCF - IMRFF
3%
Poorly correlated
-0.34%
AUMBF - IMRFF
1%
Poorly correlated
+7.69%
More