Advertisement
CGMLF vs CVVUF
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 CGMLF is a Hold and CVVUF 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).
CGMLF’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whileCVVUF’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- CGMLF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
- CVVUF’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.
CGMLF’s TA Score shows that 3 TA indicator(s) are bullish while CVVUF’s TA Score has 3 bullish TA indicator(s).
- CGMLF’s TA Score: 3 bullish, 6 bearish.
- CVVUF’s TA Score: 3 bullish, 6 bearish.
Price Growth
CGMLF (@Other Metals/Minerals) experienced а -2.65% price change this week, while CVVUF (@Other Metals/Minerals) price change was -7.67% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Other Metals/Minerals industry was -0.99%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -8.41%, and the average quarterly price growth was +99.04%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Other Metals/Minerals (-0.99% 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.
| CGMLF | CVVUF | CGMLF / CVVUF | |
| Capitalization | 440M | 79.1M | 556% |
| EBITDA | -26.99M | -13.36M | 202% |
| Gain YTD | 73.228 | -20.527 | -357% |
| P/E Ratio | N/A | N/A | - |
| Revenue | N/A | 0 | - |
| Total Cash | N/A | 20.8M | - |
| Total Debt | N/A | 658K | - |
CGMLF | CVVUF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 21 | 53 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 99 Overvalued | 65 Fair valued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 64 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 92 | 98 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 50 | 91 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 100 | 100 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 39 | 50 |
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.
CVVUF's Valuation (65) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CGMLF (99). This means that CVVUF’s stock grew somewhat faster than CGMLF’s over the last 12 months.
CVVUF's Profit vs Risk Rating (64) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CGMLF (100). This means that CVVUF’s stock grew somewhat faster than CGMLF’s over the last 12 months.
CGMLF's SMR Rating (92) in the null industry is in the same range as CVVUF (98). This means that CGMLF’s stock grew similarly to CVVUF’s over the last 12 months.
CGMLF's Price Growth Rating (50) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CVVUF (91). This means that CGMLF’s stock grew somewhat faster than CVVUF’s over the last 12 months.
CGMLF's P/E Growth Rating (100) in the null industry is in the same range as CVVUF (100). This means that CGMLF’s stock grew similarly to CVVUF’s over the last 12 months.
| CGMLF | CVVUF | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 60% | 2 days ago 80% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 70% | 2 days ago 90% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 75% | 2 days ago 84% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 73% | 2 days ago 74% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 81% | 2 days ago 82% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 84% | 2 days ago 78% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Declines ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 77% | 6 days ago 82% |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 66% | 2 days ago 90% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 87% | 2 days ago 81% |
Advertisement
CGMLF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that CGMLF and NAK have been poorly correlated (+31% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CGMLF and NAK's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CGMLF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CGMLF | 100% | -2.65% | ||
| NAK - CGMLF | 31% Poorly correlated | -5.39% | ||
| CVVUF - CGMLF | 26% Poorly correlated | -4.28% | ||
| PMETF - CGMLF | 20% Poorly correlated | +7.36% | ||
| GLNCY - CGMLF | 20% Poorly correlated | -2.65% | ||
| ATOXF - CGMLF | 20% Poorly correlated | -0.32% | ||
More | ||||