GLBKF
Price
$0.25
Change
+$0.10 (+66.67%)
Updated
Jul 29 closing price
Capitalization
52.73M
RMLRF
Price
$2.04
Change
-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Updated
Aug 28 closing price
Capitalization
3.84B
Interact to see
Advertisement

GLBKF vs RMLRF

Header iconGLBKF vs RMLRF Comparison
Open Charts GLBKF vs RMLRFBanner chart's image
Goldbank Mining
Price$0.25
Change+$0.10 (+66.67%)
Volume$100
Capitalization52.73M
Ramelius Resources
Price$2.04
Change-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Volume$41.48K
Capitalization3.84B
GLBKF vs RMLRF Comparison Chart in %
Loading...
RMLRF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
GLBKF vs. RMLRF commentary
Aug 29, 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 GLBKF is a Buy and RMLRF is a Buy.

Interact to see
Advertisement
COMPARISON
Comparison
Aug 29, 2025
Stock price -- (GLBKF: $0.25 vs. RMLRF: $2.05)
Brand notoriety: GLBKF and RMLRF are both not notable
Both companies represent the Precious Metals industry
Current volume relative to the 65-day Moving Average: GLBKF: 100% vs. RMLRF: 228%
Market capitalization -- GLBKF: $52.73M vs. RMLRF: $3.84B
GLBKF [@Precious Metals] is valued at $52.73M. RMLRF’s [@Precious Metals] market capitalization is $3.84B. The market cap for tickers in the [@Precious Metals] industry ranges from $83.78B to $0. The average market capitalization across the [@Precious Metals] industry is $2.62B.

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).

GLBKF’s FA Score shows that 2 FA rating(s) are green whileRMLRF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).

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

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.

RMLRF’s TA Score shows that 6 TA indicator(s) are bullish.

  • RMLRF’s TA Score: 6 bullish, 4 bearish.

Price Growth

GLBKF (@Precious Metals) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while RMLRF (@Precious Metals) price change was +7.07% for the same time period.

The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Precious Metals industry was +6.27%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +14.81%, and the average quarterly price growth was +3316.97%.

Industries' Descriptions

@Precious Metals (+6.27% 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.

SUMMARIES
Loading...
FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
RMLRF($3.84B) has a higher market cap than GLBKF($52.7M). GLBKF (64.055) and RMLRF (62.302) have similar YTD gains . RMLRF has higher annual earnings (EBITDA): 635M vs. GLBKF (-258.21K). RMLRF has higher revenues than GLBKF: RMLRF (1.04B) vs GLBKF (0).
GLBKFRMLRFGLBKF / RMLRF
Capitalization52.7M3.84B1%
EBITDA-258.21K635M-0%
Gain YTD64.05562.302103%
P/E RatioN/A7.74-
Revenue01.04B-
Total Cash198KN/A-
Total Debt185KN/A-
FUNDAMENTALS RATINGS
GLBKF vs RMLRF: Fundamental Ratings
GLBKF
RMLRF
OUTLOOK RATING
1..100
2719
VALUATION
overvalued / fair valued / undervalued
1..100
21
Undervalued
13
Undervalued
PROFIT vs RISK RATING
1..100
1373
SMR RATING
1..100
100100
PRICE GROWTH RATING
1..100
3642
P/E GROWTH RATING
1..100
100100
SEASONALITY SCORE
1..100
5065

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.

RMLRF's Valuation (13) in the null industry is in the same range as GLBKF (21). This means that RMLRF’s stock grew similarly to GLBKF’s over the last 12 months.

GLBKF's Profit vs Risk Rating (13) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for RMLRF (73). This means that GLBKF’s stock grew somewhat faster than RMLRF’s over the last 12 months.

GLBKF's SMR Rating (100) in the null industry is in the same range as RMLRF (100). This means that GLBKF’s stock grew similarly to RMLRF’s over the last 12 months.

GLBKF's Price Growth Rating (36) in the null industry is in the same range as RMLRF (42). This means that GLBKF’s stock grew similarly to RMLRF’s over the last 12 months.

GLBKF's P/E Growth Rating (100) in the null industry is in the same range as RMLRF (100). This means that GLBKF’s stock grew similarly to RMLRF’s over the last 12 months.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
GLBKFRMLRF
RSI
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bearish Trend 1 day ago
67%
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bearish Trend 1 day ago
69%
Momentum
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bullish Trend 1 day ago
67%
MACD
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bullish Trend 1 day ago
64%
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 1 day ago
10%
Bullish Trend 1 day ago
66%
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 1 day ago
11%
Bullish Trend 1 day ago
64%
Advances
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
71%
Declines
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bearish Trend 28 days ago
58%
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bearish Trend 1 day ago
74%
Aroon
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bullish Trend 1 day ago
70%
View a ticker or compare two or three
Interact to see
Advertisement
RMLRF
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 %
MEIIX53.19N/A
N/A
MFS Value I
PLVIX20.44N/A
N/A
Principal Large Cap Value III Inst
RMDAX5.41N/A
N/A
Virtus Silvant Mid-Cap Growth A
HLIDX14.85N/A
N/A
Harding Loevner Intl Dev Mkts Eq Inst
HIBSX92.01N/A
N/A
Hartford Stock HLS IB

GLBKF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, GLBKF has been loosely correlated with STBMF. These tickers have moved in lockstep 50% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if GLBKF jumps, then STBMF could also see price increases.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To GLBKF
1D Price
Change %
GLBKF100%
N/A
STBMF - GLBKF
50%
Loosely correlated
N/A
RMLRF - GLBKF
23%
Poorly correlated
-0.24%
GNSMF - GLBKF
22%
Poorly correlated
N/A
SRBIF - GLBKF
21%
Poorly correlated
+2.61%
GGLDF - GLBKF
9%
Poorly correlated
-1.22%
More

RMLRF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that RMLRF and GLBKF have been poorly correlated (+23% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that RMLRF and GLBKF's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To RMLRF
1D Price
Change %
RMLRF100%
-0.24%
GLBKF - RMLRF
23%
Poorly correlated
N/A
RMRDF - RMLRF
4%
Poorly correlated
+7.04%
RMLFF - RMLRF
4%
Poorly correlated
+0.48%
RUPRF - RMLRF
-1%
Poorly correlated
-0.70%
RMGGF - RMLRF
-3%
Poorly correlated
N/A
More