CLLXF
Price
$0.52
Change
+$0.02 (+4.00%)
Updated
Jul 3 closing price
Capitalization
35.08M
GSM
Price
$4.36
Change
+$0.12 (+2.83%)
Updated
Jul 3 closing price
Capitalization
892.18M
44 days until earnings call
Interact to see
Advertisement

CLLXF vs GSM

Header iconCLLXF vs GSM Comparison
Open Charts CLLXF vs GSMBanner chart's image
Callinex Mines
Price$0.52
Change+$0.02 (+4.00%)
Volume$2.26K
Capitalization35.08M
Ferroglobe
Price$4.36
Change+$0.12 (+2.83%)
Volume$1.38M
Capitalization892.18M
CLLXF vs GSM Comparison Chart in %
Loading...
CLLXF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
GSM
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
CLLXF vs. GSM commentary
Jul 05, 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 CLLXF is a Hold and GSM is a StrongBuy.

Interact to see
Advertisement
COMPARISON
Comparison
Jul 05, 2025
Stock price -- (CLLXF: $0.52 vs. GSM: $4.36)
Brand notoriety: CLLXF and GSM are both not notable
Both companies represent the Other Metals/Minerals industry
Current volume relative to the 65-day Moving Average: CLLXF: 37% vs. GSM: 95%
Market capitalization -- CLLXF: $35.08M vs. GSM: $892.18M
CLLXF [@Other Metals/Minerals] is valued at $35.08M. GSM’s [@Other Metals/Minerals] market capitalization is $892.18M. The market cap for tickers in the [@Other Metals/Minerals] industry ranges from $223.12B to $0. The average market capitalization across the [@Other Metals/Minerals] industry is $3.09B.

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).

CLLXF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileGSM’s FA Score has 2 green FA rating(s).

  • CLLXF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
  • GSM’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
According to our system of comparison, GSM is a better buy in the long-term than CLLXF.

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.

CLLXF’s TA Score shows that 3 TA indicator(s) are bullish while GSM’s TA Score has 6 bullish TA indicator(s).

  • CLLXF’s TA Score: 3 bullish, 2 bearish.
  • GSM’s TA Score: 6 bullish, 4 bearish.
According to our system of comparison, GSM is a better buy in the short-term than CLLXF.

Price Growth

CLLXF (@Other Metals/Minerals) experienced а -5.93% price change this week, while GSM (@Other Metals/Minerals) price change was +15.34% for the same time period.

The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Other Metals/Minerals industry was +3.12%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +8.79%, and the average quarterly price growth was +30.02%.

Reported Earning Dates

GSM is expected to report earnings on Aug 18, 2025.

Industries' Descriptions

@Other Metals/Minerals (+3.12% 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.

SUMMARIES
Loading...
FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
GSM($892M) has a higher market cap than CLLXF($35.1M). CLLXF has higher P/E ratio than GSM: CLLXF (1111.11) vs GSM (10.35). GSM YTD gains are higher at: 15.541 vs. CLLXF (-14.677). GSM has higher annual earnings (EBITDA): 281M vs. CLLXF (337K). CLLXF has less debt than GSM: CLLXF (74.7K) vs GSM (238M). GSM has higher revenues than CLLXF: GSM (1.72B) vs CLLXF (0).
CLLXFGSMCLLXF / GSM
Capitalization35.1M892M4%
EBITDA337K281M0%
Gain YTD-14.67715.541-94%
P/E Ratio1111.1110.3510,738%
Revenue01.72B-
Total Cash6.71MN/A-
Total Debt74.7K238M0%
FUNDAMENTALS RATINGS
CLLXF vs GSM: Fundamental Ratings
CLLXF
GSM
OUTLOOK RATING
1..100
35
VALUATION
overvalued / fair valued / undervalued
1..100
98
Overvalued
16
Undervalued
PROFIT vs RISK RATING
1..100
10059
SMR RATING
1..100
9091
PRICE GROWTH RATING
1..100
8645
P/E GROWTH RATING
1..100
177
SEASONALITY SCORE
1..100
50n/a

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.

GSM's Valuation (16) in the Industrial Specialties industry is significantly better than the same rating for CLLXF (98) in the null industry. This means that GSM’s stock grew significantly faster than CLLXF’s over the last 12 months.

GSM's Profit vs Risk Rating (59) in the Industrial Specialties industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CLLXF (100) in the null industry. This means that GSM’s stock grew somewhat faster than CLLXF’s over the last 12 months.

CLLXF's SMR Rating (90) in the null industry is in the same range as GSM (91) in the Industrial Specialties industry. This means that CLLXF’s stock grew similarly to GSM’s over the last 12 months.

GSM's Price Growth Rating (45) in the Industrial Specialties industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CLLXF (86) in the null industry. This means that GSM’s stock grew somewhat faster than CLLXF’s over the last 12 months.

GSM's P/E Growth Rating (7) in the Industrial Specialties industry is in the same range as CLLXF (17) in the null industry. This means that GSM’s stock grew similarly to CLLXF’s over the last 12 months.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
CLLXFGSM
RSI
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
82%
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
71%
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
84%
Momentum
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
90%
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
81%
MACD
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
90%
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
78%
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
89%
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
79%
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
88%
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
78%
Advances
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
76%
Declines
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bearish Trend 12 days ago
82%
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
73%
Bearish Trend 2 days ago
80%
Aroon
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
83%
Bullish Trend 2 days ago
77%
View a ticker or compare two or three
Interact to see
Advertisement
CLLXF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
GSM
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
Interesting Tickers
1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
1 Day
MFs / NAMEPrice $Chg $Chg %
LMNOX45.950.47
+1.03%
Patient Opportunity I
MMMPX24.740.14
+0.57%
Morgan Stanley Inst Emerging Mkts R6
VGINX88.700.48
+0.54%
JPMorgan US Value R6
MIISX7.650.04
+0.53%
BNY Mellon Income Stock Inv
FSYCX10.75-0.02
-0.19%
Fidelity Advisor Sustainable Intl Eq C

CLLXF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that CLLXF and GSM have been poorly correlated (+29% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CLLXF and GSM's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To CLLXF
1D Price
Change %
CLLXF100%
+3.48%
GSM - CLLXF
29%
Poorly correlated
+2.83%
TECK - CLLXF
26%
Poorly correlated
-2.13%
SOUHY - CLLXF
26%
Poorly correlated
+2.54%
ERO - CLLXF
25%
Poorly correlated
-2.81%
SCCO - CLLXF
22%
Poorly correlated
-0.22%
More