Ad is loading...
SRBIF
Price
$1.05
Change
-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Updated
Nov 14 closing price
TRGGF
Price
$0.01
Change
-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Updated
Nov 11 closing price
Ad is loading...

SRBIF vs TRGGF

Header iconSRBIF vs TRGGF Comparison
Open Charts SRBIF vs TRGGFBanner chart's image
Serabi Gold
Price$1.05
Change-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Volume$4.7K
CapitalizationN/A
Tarachi Gold
Price$0.01
Change-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Volume$10K
CapitalizationN/A
SRBIF vs TRGGF Comparison Chart
Loading...
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
SRBIF vs. TRGGF 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 SRBIF is a Hold and TRGGF is a Hold.

COMPARISON
Comparison
Nov 18, 2024
Stock price -- (SRBIF: $1.05 vs. TRGGF: $0.01)
Brand notoriety: SRBIF and TRGGF are both not notable
Both companies represent the Precious Metals industry
Current volume relative to the 65-day Moving Average: SRBIF: 41% vs. TRGGF: 39%
Market capitalization -- SRBIF: $25.31M vs. TRGGF: $2.25M
SRBIF [@Precious Metals] is valued at $25.31M. TRGGF’s [@Precious Metals] market capitalization is $2.25M. 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).

SRBIF’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whileTRGGF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).

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

Price Growth

SRBIF (@Precious Metals) experienced а -10.26% price change this week, while TRGGF (@Precious Metals) price change was +5.63% 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%.

Reported Earning Dates

SRBIF is expected to report earnings on Oct 21, 2024.

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
SRBIF($25.3M) has a higher market cap than TRGGF($2.25M). SRBIF YTD gains are higher at: 103.173 vs. TRGGF (-19.355). SRBIF has higher annual earnings (EBITDA): 9.3M vs. TRGGF (-1.07M). SRBIF has more cash in the bank: 13.9M vs. TRGGF (252K). TRGGF has less debt than SRBIF: TRGGF (71.5K) vs SRBIF (12M). SRBIF has higher revenues than TRGGF: SRBIF (59.3M) vs TRGGF (0).
SRBIFTRGGFSRBIF / TRGGF
Capitalization25.3M2.25M1,125%
EBITDA9.3M-1.07M-870%
Gain YTD103.173-19.355-533%
P/E Ratio16.64N/A-
Revenue59.3M0-
Total Cash13.9M252K5,516%
Total Debt12M71.5K16,783%
FUNDAMENTALS RATINGS
SRBIF: Fundamental Ratings
SRBIF
OUTLOOK RATING
1..100
50
VALUATION
overvalued / fair valued / undervalued
1..100
57
Fair valued
PROFIT vs RISK RATING
1..100
74
SMR RATING
1..100
62
PRICE GROWTH RATING
1..100
36
P/E GROWTH RATING
1..100
95
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
ETFs / NAMEPrice $Chg $Chg %
PULS49.680.01
+0.02%
PGIM Ultra Short Bond ETF
MSTI20.48-0.01
-0.05%
Madison Short-Term Strategic Income ETF
HAWX32.47-0.08
-0.23%
iShares Currency Hdgd MSCI ACWI exUS ETF
LGLV171.66-0.53
-0.31%
SPDR® SSGA US Large Cap Low Volatil ETF
FSST27.48-0.31
-1.10%
Fidelity Sustainable U.S. Equity ETF

SRBIF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, SRBIF has been loosely correlated with GSMGF. These tickers have moved in lockstep 43% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if SRBIF jumps, then GSMGF could also see price increases.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To SRBIF
1D Price
Change %
SRBIF100%
N/A
GSMGF - SRBIF
43%
Loosely correlated
N/A
GMDMF - SRBIF
26%
Poorly correlated
N/A
WGXRF - SRBIF
22%
Poorly correlated
+3.25%
GNSMF - SRBIF
21%
Poorly correlated
N/A
GLBKF - SRBIF
20%
Poorly correlated
N/A
More

TRGGF and

Correlation & Price change

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

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To TRGGF
1D Price
Change %
TRGGF100%
N/A
SLRRF - TRGGF
28%
Poorly correlated
-48.89%
PNGZF - TRGGF
27%
Poorly correlated
N/A
GSMGF - TRGGF
23%
Poorly correlated
N/A
BLTMF - TRGGF
22%
Poorly correlated
N/A
SRBIF - TRGGF
20%
Poorly correlated
N/A
More