CGLCF
Price
$0.15
Change
+$0.01 (+7.14%)
Updated
Aug 27 closing price
Capitalization
18.57M
LVGLF
Price
$0.15
Change
-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Updated
Aug 27 closing price
Capitalization
22.59M
Interact to see
Advertisement

CGLCF vs LVGLF

Header iconCGLCF vs LVGLF Comparison
Open Charts CGLCF vs LVGLFBanner chart's image
Cassiar Gold
Price$0.15
Change+$0.01 (+7.14%)
Volume$540.78K
Capitalization18.57M
LAKE VICTORIA GOLD
Price$0.15
Change-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Volume$82.73K
Capitalization22.59M
CGLCF vs LVGLF Comparison Chart in %
Loading...
CGLCF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
LVGLF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
CGLCF vs. LVGLF commentary
Aug 28, 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 StrongBuy and LVGLF is a StrongBuy.

Interact to see
Advertisement
COMPARISON
Comparison
Aug 28, 2025
Stock price -- (CGLCF: $0.15 vs. LVGLF: $0.15)
Brand notoriety: CGLCF and LVGLF are both not notable
Both companies represent the Precious Metals industry
Current volume relative to the 65-day Moving Average: CGLCF: 280% vs. LVGLF: 119%
Market capitalization -- CGLCF: $18.57M vs. LVGLF: $22.59M
CGLCF [@Precious Metals] is valued at $18.57M. LVGLF’s [@Precious Metals] market capitalization is $22.59M. The market cap for tickers in the [@Precious Metals] industry ranges from $83.82B to $0. The average market capitalization across the [@Precious Metals] industry is $2.61B.

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 whileLVGLF’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).

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

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 LVGLF’s TA Score has 5 bullish TA indicator(s).

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

Price Growth

CGLCF (@Precious Metals) experienced а -2.89% price change this week, while LVGLF (@Precious Metals) price change was +11.80% for the same time period.

The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Precious Metals industry was +4.84%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +13.29%, and the average quarterly price growth was +4218.34%.

Industries' Descriptions

@Precious Metals (+4.84% 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
LVGLF($22.6M) has a higher market cap than CGLCF($18.6M). LVGLF YTD gains are higher at: 44.083 vs. CGLCF (13.923). LVGLF has higher annual earnings (EBITDA): -1.86M vs. CGLCF (-8.25M). CGLCF has more cash in the bank: 2.61M vs. LVGLF (114K). CGLCF has less debt than LVGLF: CGLCF (16.8K) vs LVGLF (1.02M). CGLCF (0) and LVGLF (0) have equivalent revenues.
CGLCFLVGLFCGLCF / LVGLF
Capitalization18.6M22.6M82%
EBITDA-8.25M-1.86M444%
Gain YTD13.92344.08332%
P/E RatioN/AN/A-
Revenue00-
Total Cash2.61M114K2,291%
Total Debt16.8K1.02M2%
FUNDAMENTALS RATINGS
CGLCF vs LVGLF: Fundamental Ratings
CGLCF
LVGLF
OUTLOOK RATING
1..100
552
VALUATION
overvalued / fair valued / undervalued
1..100
43
Fair valued
44
Fair valued
PROFIT vs RISK RATING
1..100
100100
SMR RATING
1..100
9696
PRICE GROWTH RATING
1..100
8546
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 (43) in the null industry is in the same range as LVGLF (44). This means that CGLCF’s stock grew similarly to LVGLF’s over the last 12 months.

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

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

LVGLF's Price Growth Rating (46) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CGLCF (85). This means that LVGLF’s stock grew somewhat faster than CGLCF’s over the last 12 months.

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

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
CGLCFLVGLF
RSI
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
84%
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
90%
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
77%
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
77%
Momentum
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 7 days ago
90%
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
74%
MACD
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
71%
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
88%
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
69%
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
89%
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
68%
Advances
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
82%
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
75%
Declines
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
86%
Bearish Trend 11 days ago
77%
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
90%
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
86%
Aroon
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
90%
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
75%
View a ticker or compare two or three
Interact to see
Advertisement
CGLCF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
LVGLF
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 %
CGGGF1.04N/A
N/A
Coats Group PLC
PJXRF0.11N/A
N/A
PJX Res Inc
MSSEL58.89N/A
N/A
Massachusetts Electric Co.
WHGPF0.54N/A
N/A
Warehouse Group (THE)
BLIDF31.38N/A
N/A
Boliden AB

LVGLF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that LVGLF and PLGDF have been poorly correlated (+24% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that LVGLF and PLGDF's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To LVGLF
1D Price
Change %
LVGLF100%
+2.65%
PLGDF - LVGLF
24%
Poorly correlated
-3.85%
CGLCF - LVGLF
21%
Poorly correlated
+2.21%
GRCAF - LVGLF
21%
Poorly correlated
-5.28%
WGXRF - LVGLF
20%
Poorly correlated
+1.38%
FDMIF - LVGLF
12%
Poorly correlated
-0.84%
More