ILHMF vs RGLSF
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 ILHMF is a Hold and RGLSF 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).
ILHMF’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whileRGLSF’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- ILHMF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
- RGLSF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
Price Growth
ILHMF (@Other Metals/Minerals) experienced а +1.00% price change this week, while RGLSF (@Other Metals/Minerals) price change was -4.83% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Other Metals/Minerals industry was +0.03%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +4.46%, and the average quarterly price growth was +10.92%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Other Metals/Minerals (+0.03% 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.
| ILHMF | RGLSF | ILHMF / RGLSF | |
| Capitalization | 9.38M | 134M | 7% |
| EBITDA | 31.3K | -2.57M | -1% |
| Gain YTD | -9.009 | 8.045 | -112% |
| P/E Ratio | 2.07 | N/A | - |
| Revenue | 0 | 0 | - |
| Total Cash | 6.22M | 16.5M | 38% |
| Total Debt | 428K | N/A | - |
ILHMF | RGLSF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 36 Fair valued | 72 Overvalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 46 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 95 | 89 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 79 | 44 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 48 | 74 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | n/a | n/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.
ILHMF's Valuation (36) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for RGLSF (72). This means that ILHMF’s stock grew somewhat faster than RGLSF’s over the last 12 months.
RGLSF's Profit vs Risk Rating (46) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for ILHMF (100). This means that RGLSF’s stock grew somewhat faster than ILHMF’s over the last 12 months.
RGLSF's SMR Rating (89) in the null industry is in the same range as ILHMF (95). This means that RGLSF’s stock grew similarly to ILHMF’s over the last 12 months.
RGLSF's Price Growth Rating (44) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for ILHMF (79). This means that RGLSF’s stock grew somewhat faster than ILHMF’s over the last 12 months.
ILHMF's P/E Growth Rating (48) in the null industry is in the same range as RGLSF (74). This means that ILHMF’s stock grew similarly to RGLSF’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 % |
| JDIAX | 48.91 | -0.07 | -0.14% |
| Janus Henderson Overseas A | |||
| VFWSX | 120.67 | -0.67 | -0.55% |
| Vanguard FTSE All-Wld ex-US Idx Instl | |||
| JERTX | 11.62 | -0.10 | -0.85% |
| Janus Henderson Global Real Estate T | |||
| NECOX | 23.03 | -0.32 | -1.37% |
| Natixis Oakmark C | |||
| RYWAX | 50.16 | -1.91 | -3.67% |
| Rydex S&P SmallCap 600 Pure Growth H | |||
ILHMF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that ILHMF and RGLSF have been poorly correlated (+28% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that ILHMF and RGLSF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To ILHMF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ILHMF | 100% | -10.62% | ||
| RGLSF - ILHMF | 28% Poorly correlated | +0.49% | ||
| EROSF - ILHMF | 24% Poorly correlated | +1.81% | ||
| AFMJF - ILHMF | 21% Poorly correlated | +0.04% | ||
| HUSIF - ILHMF | 15% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| IMIMF - ILHMF | 11% Poorly correlated | +9.42% | ||
More | ||||
RGLSF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that RGLSF and MARIF have been poorly correlated (+32% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that RGLSF and MARIF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To RGLSF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RGLSF | 100% | +0.49% | ||
| MARIF - RGLSF | 32% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| UAMY - RGLSF | 32% Poorly correlated | -7.65% | ||
| SRLZF - RGLSF | 30% Poorly correlated | +0.22% | ||
| ILHMF - RGLSF | 28% Poorly correlated | -10.62% | ||
| EROSF - RGLSF | 25% Poorly correlated | +1.81% | ||
More | ||||