Advertisement
BHPLF vs IMIMF
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 BHPLF is a Hold and IMIMF 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).
BHPLF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileIMIMF’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- BHPLF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- IMIMF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
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.
BHPLF’s TA Score shows that 2 TA indicator(s) are bullish while IMIMF’s TA Score has 4 bullish TA indicator(s).
- BHPLF’s TA Score: 2 bullish, 7 bearish.
- IMIMF’s TA Score: 4 bullish, 4 bearish.
Price Growth
BHPLF (@Other Metals/Minerals) experienced а +2.10% price change this week, while IMIMF (@Other Metals/Minerals) price change was +4.26% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Other Metals/Minerals industry was +7.28%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +9.08%, and the average quarterly price growth was +240.19%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Other Metals/Minerals (+7.28% 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.
| BHPLF | IMIMF | BHPLF / IMIMF | |
| Capitalization | 143B | 6.16M | 2,320,299% |
| EBITDA | 25.8B | -3.67M | -702,191% |
| Gain YTD | 12.369 | 107.387 | 12% |
| P/E Ratio | 14.72 | N/A | - |
| Revenue | 51.3B | 0 | - |
| Total Cash | 12B | 51.7K | 23,210,832% |
| Total Debt | 24.5B | N/A | - |
BHPLF | IMIMF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 33 | 62 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 6 Undervalued | 79 Overvalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 57 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 99 | 98 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 61 | 36 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 64 | 100 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 85 | 50 |
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.
BHPLF's Valuation (6) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for IMIMF (79). This means that BHPLF’s stock grew significantly faster than IMIMF’s over the last 12 months.
BHPLF's Profit vs Risk Rating (57) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for IMIMF (100). This means that BHPLF’s stock grew somewhat faster than IMIMF’s over the last 12 months.
IMIMF's SMR Rating (98) in the null industry is in the same range as BHPLF (99). This means that IMIMF’s stock grew similarly to BHPLF’s over the last 12 months.
IMIMF's Price Growth Rating (36) in the null industry is in the same range as BHPLF (61). This means that IMIMF’s stock grew similarly to BHPLF’s over the last 12 months.
BHPLF's P/E Growth Rating (64) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for IMIMF (100). This means that BHPLF’s stock grew somewhat faster than IMIMF’s over the last 12 months.
| BHPLF | IMIMF | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | N/A | 2 days ago 90% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 71% | 2 days ago 74% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 69% | 2 days ago 89% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 75% | 2 days ago 88% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 66% | 2 days ago 79% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 66% | 2 days ago 86% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | 14 days ago 68% | 28 days ago 81% |
| Declines ODDS (%) | 24 days ago 62% | 10 days ago 85% |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 83% | 2 days ago 89% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 55% | 2 days ago 80% |
Advertisement
BHPLF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, BHPLF has been loosely correlated with BHP. These tickers have moved in lockstep 33% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if BHPLF jumps, then BHP could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To BHPLF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BHPLF | 100% | N/A | ||
| BHP - BHPLF | 33% Loosely correlated | +2.93% | ||
| TECK - BHPLF | 30% Poorly correlated | +2.82% | ||
| RIO - BHPLF | 28% Poorly correlated | +2.68% | ||
| FSUGY - BHPLF | 26% Poorly correlated | +0.59% | ||
| SOUHY - BHPLF | 26% Poorly correlated | +2.18% | ||
More | ||||
IMIMF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that IMIMF and BHPLF have been poorly correlated (+20% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that IMIMF and BHPLF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To IMIMF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IMIMF | 100% | -0.68% | ||
| BHPLF - IMIMF | 20% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| HRFEF - IMIMF | 7% Poorly correlated | +8.33% | ||
| ILKAF - IMIMF | 5% Poorly correlated | -0.57% | ||
| ILKAY - IMIMF | -0% Poorly correlated | +0.34% | ||
| HUSIF - IMIMF | -6% Poorly correlated | +0.86% |