CYLYF vs NLPXF
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 CYLYF is a Hold and NLPXF 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).
CYLYF’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whileNLPXF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).
- CYLYF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
- NLPXF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
Price Growth
CYLYF (@Other Metals/Minerals) experienced а -4.62% price change this week, while NLPXF (@Other Metals/Minerals) price change was +1.06% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Other Metals/Minerals industry was -1.39%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -3.56%, and the average quarterly price growth was -10.62%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Other Metals/Minerals (-1.39% 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.
| CYLYF | NLPXF | CYLYF / NLPXF | |
| Capitalization | 6.4M | 8.96M | 71% |
| EBITDA | -2.85M | -1.72M | 165% |
| Gain YTD | -54.074 | -30.170 | 179% |
| P/E Ratio | N/A | N/A | - |
| Revenue | 0 | 0 | - |
| Total Cash | 1.52M | 6.33M | 24% |
| Total Debt | 1.99M | 57K | 3,488% |
CYLYF | NLPXF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 38 Fair valued | 81 Overvalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 98 | 84 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 94 | 80 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 100 | 4 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | n/a | 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.
CYLYF's Valuation (38) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for NLPXF (81). This means that CYLYF’s stock grew somewhat faster than NLPXF’s over the last 12 months.
CYLYF's Profit vs Risk Rating (100) in the null industry is in the same range as NLPXF (100). This means that CYLYF’s stock grew similarly to NLPXF’s over the last 12 months.
NLPXF's SMR Rating (84) in the null industry is in the same range as CYLYF (98). This means that NLPXF’s stock grew similarly to CYLYF’s over the last 12 months.
NLPXF's Price Growth Rating (80) in the null industry is in the same range as CYLYF (94). This means that NLPXF’s stock grew similarly to CYLYF’s over the last 12 months.
NLPXF's P/E Growth Rating (4) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for CYLYF (100). This means that NLPXF’s stock grew significantly faster than CYLYF’s over the last 12 months.
| RSI ODDS (%) |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) |
| Momentum ODDS (%) |
| MACD ODDS (%) |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) |
| Advances ODDS (%) |
| Declines ODDS (%) |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) |
| Aroon ODDS (%) |
| 1 Day | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| MFs / NAME | Price $ | Chg $ | Chg % |
| HDGBX | 24.46 | -0.13 | -0.53% |
| Hartford Dividend and Growth HLS IB | |||
| MTOIX | 20.81 | -0.12 | -0.57% |
| NYLI Income Builder Class I | |||
| SVUIX | 9.22 | -0.09 | -0.97% |
| NAA SMid Cap Value Institutional | |||
| RSLDX | 69.58 | -0.86 | -1.22% |
| American Funds SMALLCAP World R5E | |||
| AISZX | 17.91 | -0.48 | -2.61% |
| Alger SmallCap Growth Institutional Z-2 | |||
CYLYF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that CYLYF and HANCF have been poorly correlated (+23% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CYLYF and HANCF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CYLYF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CYLYF | 100% | +8.11% | ||
| HANCF - CYLYF | 23% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| NLPXF - CYLYF | 22% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| SBWFF - CYLYF | 21% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| TRBMF - CYLYF | 20% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| RTPPF - CYLYF | 10% Poorly correlated | -1.64% | ||
More | ||||
NLPXF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that NLPXF and ATBHF have been poorly correlated (+23% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that NLPXF and ATBHF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To NLPXF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| NLPXF | 100% | N/A | ||
| ATBHF - NLPXF | 23% Poorly correlated | -22.49% | ||
| CYLYF - NLPXF | 22% Poorly correlated | +8.11% | ||
| BVLDF - NLPXF | 20% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| NXGM - NLPXF | 10% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| NWXPF - NLPXF | 8% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||