Ad is loading...
SCTSF
Price
$0.10
Change
-$0.01 (-9.09%)
Updated
Nov 15 closing price
SGNLF
Price
$0.05
Change
-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Updated
Nov 15 closing price
Ad is loading...

SCTSF vs SGNLF

Header iconSCTSF vs SGNLF Comparison
Open Charts SCTSF vs SGNLFBanner chart's image
SCOTTIE RES
Price$0.10
Change-$0.01 (-9.09%)
Volume$16K
CapitalizationN/A
SIGNAL GOLD
Price$0.05
Change-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Volume$1.89K
CapitalizationN/A
SCTSF vs SGNLF Comparison Chart
Loading...
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
SCTSF vs. SGNLF 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 SCTSF is a Hold and SGNLF is a Sell.

COMPARISON
Comparison
Nov 18, 2024
Stock price -- (SCTSF: $0.10 vs. SGNLF: $0.05)
Brand notoriety: SCTSF and SGNLF are both not notable
Both companies represent the Precious Metals industry
Current volume relative to the 65-day Moving Average: SCTSF: 26% vs. SGNLF: 3%
Market capitalization -- SCTSF: $45.47M vs. SGNLF: $41.39M
SCTSF [@Precious Metals] is valued at $45.47M. SGNLF’s [@Precious Metals] market capitalization is $41.39M. 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).

SCTSF’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whileSGNLF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).

  • SCTSF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
  • SGNLF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
According to our system of comparison, SGNLF is a better buy in the long-term than SCTSF.

Price Growth

SCTSF (@Precious Metals) experienced а -10.95% price change this week, while SGNLF (@Precious Metals) price change was -14.59% for the same time period.

The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Precious Metals industry was -2.07%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -6.32%, and the average quarterly price growth was -1.75%.

Industries' Descriptions

@Precious Metals (-2.07% 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
SCTSF($45.5M) has a higher market cap than SGNLF($41.4M). SCTSF YTD gains are higher at: -32.410 vs. SGNLF (-49.171). SGNLF has higher annual earnings (EBITDA): 4.64M vs. SCTSF (-8.32M). SGNLF has more cash in the bank: 16.2M vs. SCTSF (5.48M). SCTSF has less debt than SGNLF: SCTSF (242K) vs SGNLF (20.7M). SGNLF has higher revenues than SCTSF: SGNLF (41.6M) vs SCTSF (0).
SCTSFSGNLFSCTSF / SGNLF
Capitalization45.5M41.4M110%
EBITDA-8.32M4.64M-179%
Gain YTD-32.410-49.17166%
P/E RatioN/AN/A-
Revenue041.6M-
Total Cash5.48M16.2M34%
Total Debt242K20.7M1%
FUNDAMENTALS RATINGS
SGNLF: Fundamental Ratings
SGNLF
OUTLOOK RATING
1..100
50
VALUATION
overvalued / fair valued / undervalued
1..100
27
Undervalued
PROFIT vs RISK RATING
1..100
100
SMR RATING
1..100
91
PRICE GROWTH RATING
1..100
87
P/E GROWTH RATING
1..100
100
SEASONALITY SCORE
1..100
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.

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
STOCK / NAMEPrice $Chg $Chg %
PBR14.110.12
+0.86%
Petroleo Brasileiro Sa-Petrobras ADS (REP 1 Common Share)
GAN1.810.01
+0.56%
GAN Limited
DAC85.76-0.15
-0.17%
Danaos Corp
POST106.14-1.64
-1.52%
Post Holdings
BLZE6.28-0.28
-4.27%
Backblaze

SCTSF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, SCTSF has been loosely correlated with GOLD. These tickers have moved in lockstep 35% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if SCTSF jumps, then GOLD could also see price increases.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To SCTSF
1D Price
Change %
SCTSF100%
-5.75%
GOLD - SCTSF
35%
Loosely correlated
-1.19%
GATO - SCTSF
35%
Loosely correlated
-1.91%
WPM - SCTSF
33%
Poorly correlated
-1.11%
PAAS - SCTSF
32%
Poorly correlated
-2.15%
IAUX - SCTSF
32%
Poorly correlated
-10.57%
More

SGNLF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that SGNLF and SCTSF have been poorly correlated (+22% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that SGNLF and SCTSF's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To SGNLF
1D Price
Change %
SGNLF100%
-4.75%
SCTSF - SGNLF
22%
Poorly correlated
-5.75%
NEM - SGNLF
22%
Poorly correlated
+0.61%
FTBYF - SGNLF
22%
Poorly correlated
N/A
STPGF - SGNLF
21%
Poorly correlated
+3.62%
SVM - SGNLF
20%
Poorly correlated
-2.01%
More