EMUSF vs PLGDF

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).

EMUSF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whilePLGDF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).

• EMUSF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
• PLGDF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 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.

EMUSF’s TA Score shows that 3 TA indicator(s) are bullish while PLGDF’s TA Score has 5 bullish TA indicator(s).

• EMUSF’s TA Score: 3 bullish, 6 bearish.
• PLGDF’s TA Score: 5 bullish, 2 bearish.

Price Growth

EMUSF (@Precious Metals) experienced а -15.05% price change this week, while PLGDF (@Precious Metals) price change was +2.00% for the same time period.

The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Precious Metals industry was -3.69%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -1.07%, and the average quarterly price growth was +4.67%.

Industries' Descriptions