Ad is loading...
FFOXF
Price
$0.03
Change
-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Updated
Nov 15 closing price
MSLVF
Price
$0.08
Change
-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Updated
Oct 30 closing price
Ad is loading...

FFOXF vs MSLVF

Header iconFFOXF vs MSLVF Comparison
Open Charts FFOXF vs MSLVFBanner chart's image
Firefox Gold
Price$0.03
Change-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Volume$2K
CapitalizationN/A
FIRST ANDES SILVER
Price$0.08
Change-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Volume$1.5K
CapitalizationN/A
FFOXF vs MSLVF Comparison Chart
Loading...
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
FFOXF vs. MSLVF commentary
Nov 18, 2024

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 FFOXF is a Hold and MSLVF is a Hold.

COMPARISON
Comparison
Nov 18, 2024
Stock price -- (FFOXF: $0.03 vs. MSLVF: $0.08)
Brand notoriety: FFOXF and MSLVF are both not notable
Both companies represent the Precious Metals industry
Current volume relative to the 65-day Moving Average: FFOXF: 3% vs. MSLVF: 32%
Market capitalization -- FFOXF: $8.36M vs. MSLVF: $2.17M
FFOXF [@Precious Metals] is valued at $8.36M. MSLVF’s [@Precious Metals] market capitalization is $2.17M. The market cap for tickers in the [@Precious Metals] industry ranges from $47.49B to $0. The average market capitalization across the [@Precious Metals] industry is $1.04B.

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).

FFOXF’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whileMSLVF’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).

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

Price Growth

FFOXF (@Precious Metals) experienced а -12.42% price change this week, while MSLVF (@Precious Metals) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.

The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Precious Metals industry was -5.50%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -4.71%, and the average quarterly price growth was -2.33%.

Industries' Descriptions

@Precious Metals (-5.50% 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.

FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
FFOXF($8.36M) has a higher market cap than MSLVF($2.17M). MSLVF YTD gains are higher at: 35.149 vs. FFOXF (-66.289). MSLVF has higher annual earnings (EBITDA): -1.23M vs. FFOXF (-3.02M). FFOXF has more cash in the bank: 942K vs. MSLVF (31.9K). FFOXF (0) and MSLVF (0) have equivalent revenues.
FFOXFMSLVFFFOXF / MSLVF
Capitalization8.36M2.17M386%
EBITDA-3.02M-1.23M246%
Gain YTD-66.28935.149-189%
P/E RatioN/A1.29-
Revenue00-
Total Cash942K31.9K2,953%
Total DebtN/A54.7K-
TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
RSI
ODDS (%)
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
Momentum
ODDS (%)
MACD
ODDS (%)
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Advances
ODDS (%)
Declines
ODDS (%)
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
Aroon
ODDS (%)
View a ticker or compare two or three
Ad is loading...
Interesting Tickers
1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
1 Day
MFs / NAMEPrice $Chg $Chg %
MMUCX23.820.28
+1.19%
MFS Utilities C
GARKX9.75N/A
N/A
Goldman Sachs Global Rl Estt Secs C
TSFAX16.00-0.16
-0.99%
Touchstone Small Cap A
FNGDX15.52-0.17
-1.08%
Franklin Intl Growth C
FNITX39.56-0.78
-1.93%
Fidelity Advisor New Insights M

FFOXF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, FFOXF has been loosely correlated with CALRF. These tickers have moved in lockstep 36% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if FFOXF jumps, then CALRF could also see price increases.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To FFOXF
1D Price
Change %
FFOXF100%
-12.13%
CALRF - FFOXF
36%
Loosely correlated
N/A
PAAS - FFOXF
26%
Poorly correlated
-2.15%
MAG - FFOXF
24%
Poorly correlated
-1.97%
VGZ - FFOXF
23%
Poorly correlated
-2.41%
FSM - FFOXF
23%
Poorly correlated
-0.43%
More

MSLVF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that MSLVF and ECRTF have been poorly correlated (+28% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that MSLVF and ECRTF's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To MSLVF
1D Price
Change %
MSLVF100%
N/A
ECRTF - MSLVF
28%
Poorly correlated
N/A
QDROF - MSLVF
25%
Poorly correlated
N/A
FFOXF - MSLVF
23%
Poorly correlated
-12.13%
KLGDF - MSLVF
20%
Poorly correlated
+4.01%
BDGCF - MSLVF
12%
Poorly correlated
N/A
More