HYMC
Price
$2.15
Change
+$0.01 (+0.47%)
Updated
Jan 17 closing price
Capitalization
46.42M
TGLDF
Price
$0.11
Change
-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Updated
Jan 16 closing price
Capitalization
8M
Ad is loading...

HYMC vs TGLDF

Header iconHYMC vs TGLDF Comparison
Open Charts HYMC vs TGLDFBanner chart's image
Hycroft Mining Holding
Price$2.15
Change+$0.01 (+0.47%)
Volume$118.93K
Capitalization46.42M
RENEGADE GOLD
Price$0.11
Change-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Volume$3K
Capitalization8M
HYMC vs TGLDF Comparison Chart
Loading...
HYMC
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
TGLDF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
HYMC vs. TGLDF commentary
Jan 19, 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 HYMC is a Hold and TGLDF is a Hold.

Ad is loading...
COMPARISON
Comparison
Jan 19, 2025
Stock price -- (HYMC: $2.15 vs. TGLDF: $0.11)
Brand notoriety: HYMC and TGLDF are both not notable
Both companies represent the Precious Metals industry
Current volume relative to the 65-day Moving Average: HYMC: 54% vs. TGLDF: 128%
Market capitalization -- HYMC: $46.42M vs. TGLDF: $8M
HYMC [@Precious Metals] is valued at $46.42M. TGLDF’s [@Precious Metals] market capitalization is $8M. 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 $1.06B.

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).

HYMC’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileTGLDF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).

  • HYMC’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
  • TGLDF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
According to our system of comparison, both HYMC and TGLDF are a bad buy in the long-term.

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.

HYMC’s TA Score shows that 3 TA indicator(s) are bullish while TGLDF’s TA Score has 1 bullish TA indicator(s).

  • HYMC’s TA Score: 3 bullish, 3 bearish.
  • TGLDF’s TA Score: 1 bullish, 4 bearish.
According to our system of comparison, HYMC is a better buy in the short-term than TGLDF.

Price Growth

HYMC (@Precious Metals) experienced а +2.38% price change this week, while TGLDF (@Precious Metals) price change was +1.89% for the same time period.

The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Precious Metals industry was +2.38%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +7.29%, and the average quarterly price growth was +0.47%.

Reported Earning Dates

HYMC is expected to report earnings on Mar 27, 2024.

Industries' Descriptions

@Precious Metals (+2.38% 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
HYMC($46.4M) has a higher market cap than TGLDF($8M). HYMC YTD gains are higher at: -2.715 vs. TGLDF (-5.465).
HYMCTGLDFHYMC / TGLDF
Capitalization46.4M8M580%
EBITDA-34.21MN/A-
Gain YTD-2.715-5.46550%
P/E Ratio3.75N/A-
Revenue0N/A-
Total Cash106MN/A-
Total Debt145MN/A-
FUNDAMENTALS RATINGS
HYMC vs TGLDF: Fundamental Ratings
HYMC
TGLDF
OUTLOOK RATING
1..100
1050
VALUATION
overvalued / fair valued / undervalued
1..100
87
Overvalued
28
Undervalued
PROFIT vs RISK RATING
1..100
100100
SMR RATING
1..100
10098
PRICE GROWTH RATING
1..100
5965
P/E GROWTH RATING
1..100
1100
SEASONALITY SCORE
1..100
n/an/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.

TGLDF's Valuation (28) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for HYMC (87). This means that TGLDF’s stock grew somewhat faster than HYMC’s over the last 12 months.

TGLDF's Profit vs Risk Rating (100) in the null industry is in the same range as HYMC (100). This means that TGLDF’s stock grew similarly to HYMC’s over the last 12 months.

TGLDF's SMR Rating (98) in the null industry is in the same range as HYMC (100). This means that TGLDF’s stock grew similarly to HYMC’s over the last 12 months.

HYMC's Price Growth Rating (59) in the null industry is in the same range as TGLDF (65). This means that HYMC’s stock grew similarly to TGLDF’s over the last 12 months.

HYMC's P/E Growth Rating (1) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for TGLDF (100). This means that HYMC’s stock grew significantly faster than TGLDF’s over the last 12 months.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
HYMCTGLDF
RSI
ODDS (%)
N/A
N/A
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 12 days ago
90%
Bearish Trend 12 days ago
89%
Momentum
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 12 days ago
79%
Bullish Trend 12 days ago
70%
MACD
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 12 days ago
89%
N/A
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 12 days ago
89%
Bearish Trend 12 days ago
89%
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 12 days ago
88%
Bearish Trend 12 days ago
89%
Advances
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 25 days ago
76%
N/A
Declines
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 12 days ago
89%
Bearish Trend 21 days ago
90%
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bearish Trend 12 days ago
79%
Aroon
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 12 days ago
87%
Bearish Trend 12 days ago
90%
View a ticker or compare two or three
Ad is loading...
HYMC
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
TGLDF
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 %
ALVIX10.350.07
+0.68%
American Century Focused Lg Cap Val Inv
CDDRX34.640.20
+0.58%
Columbia Dividend Income Inst2
ACSMX11.040.03
+0.27%
Advisors Capital Small/Mid Cap
SVUIX4.900.01
+0.20%
NAA SMid Cap Value Institutional
ESGYX20.350.02
+0.10%
Mirova Global Sustainable Equity Y

HYMC and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, HYMC has been loosely correlated with AG. These tickers have moved in lockstep 54% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if HYMC jumps, then AG could also see price increases.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To HYMC
1D Price
Change %
HYMC100%
+0.47%
AG - HYMC
54%
Loosely correlated
+5.04%
MAG - HYMC
52%
Loosely correlated
+0.60%
HL - HYMC
52%
Loosely correlated
+0.56%
CDE - HYMC
51%
Loosely correlated
-0.16%
PAAS - HYMC
49%
Loosely correlated
-0.09%
More

TGLDF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that TGLDF and MFGCF have been poorly correlated (+21% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that TGLDF and MFGCF's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To TGLDF
1D Price
Change %
TGLDF100%
N/A
MFGCF - TGLDF
21%
Poorly correlated
-1.61%
ORVMF - TGLDF
20%
Poorly correlated
N/A
HYMC - TGLDF
20%
Poorly correlated
+0.47%
ARMN - TGLDF
8%
Poorly correlated
-1.90%
TGMGF - TGLDF
6%
Poorly correlated
N/A
More