BLMC
Price
$2.80
Change
-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Updated
May 12 closing price
Capitalization
N/A
FRHLF
Price
$9.55
Change
+$0.12 (+1.27%)
Updated
Jun 13 closing price
Capitalization
1.58B
Interact to see
Advertisement

BLMC vs FRHLF

Header iconBLMC vs FRHLF Comparison
Open Charts BLMC vs FRHLFBanner chart's image
Biloxi Marsh Lands
Price$2.80
Change-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Volume$3.15K
CapitalizationN/A
Freehold Royalties
Price$9.55
Change+$0.12 (+1.27%)
Volume$68.81K
Capitalization1.58B
BLMC vs FRHLF Comparison Chart
Loading...
FRHLF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
BLMC vs. FRHLF commentary
Jun 15, 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 BLMC is a Hold and FRHLF is a Hold.

Interact to see
Advertisement
COMPARISON
Comparison
Jun 15, 2025
Stock price -- (BLMC: $2.80 vs. FRHLF: $9.55)
Brand notoriety: BLMC and FRHLF are both not notable
Both companies represent the Oil & Gas Production industry
Current volume relative to the 65-day Moving Average: BLMC: 175% vs. FRHLF: 85%
Market capitalization -- BLMC: $0 vs. FRHLF: $1.58B
BLMC [@Oil & Gas Production] is valued at $0. FRHLF’s [@Oil & Gas Production] market capitalization is $1.58B. The market cap for tickers in the [@Oil & Gas Production] industry ranges from $151.38B to $0. The average market capitalization across the [@Oil & Gas Production] industry is $4.26B.

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).

BLMC’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileFRHLF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).

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

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.

FRHLF’s TA Score shows that 6 TA indicator(s) are bullish.

  • FRHLF’s TA Score: 6 bullish, 4 bearish.

Price Growth

BLMC (@Oil & Gas Production) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while FRHLF (@Oil & Gas Production) price change was +5.63% for the same time period.

The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Oil & Gas Production industry was +5.89%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +12.61%, and the average quarterly price growth was +49.05%.

Industries' Descriptions

@Oil & Gas Production (+5.89% weekly)

The oil and gas production segment includes companies that specialize in exploration, development, and production of oil and natural gas. These companies are focused on upstream operations. Companies typically identify deposits, drill wells, and extract raw materials from underground. The industry also includes related services like rig operations, feasibility studies, machinery rentals etc. Several operators in this industry work with various types of contractors such as engineering procurement and construction contractors, as well as with joint-venture partners and oil field service companies. Oil and gas often involves large fixed costs of production; so, declining crude oil prices, for example, is a potential negative for this industry. Conoco Phillips, EOG Resources, Inc. and Pioneer Natural Resources Company are some examples of companies operating in this space.

SUMMARIES
Loading...
FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
FRHLF YTD gains are higher at: 7.424 vs. BLMC (-27.742).
BLMCFRHLFBLMC / FRHLF
CapitalizationN/A1.58B-
EBITDAN/A370M-
Gain YTD-27.7427.424-374%
P/E RatioN/A13.19-
RevenueN/A382M-
Total CashN/A508K-
Total DebtN/A161M-
FUNDAMENTALS RATINGS
BLMC vs FRHLF: Fundamental Ratings
BLMC
FRHLF
OUTLOOK RATING
1..100
5050
VALUATION
overvalued / fair valued / undervalued
1..100
99
Overvalued
18
Undervalued
PROFIT vs RISK RATING
1..100
10034
SMR RATING
1..100
10054
PRICE GROWTH RATING
1..100
7849
P/E GROWTH RATING
1..100
1667
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.

FRHLF's Valuation (18) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for BLMC (99). This means that FRHLF’s stock grew significantly faster than BLMC’s over the last 12 months.

FRHLF's Profit vs Risk Rating (34) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for BLMC (100). This means that FRHLF’s stock grew significantly faster than BLMC’s over the last 12 months.

FRHLF's SMR Rating (54) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for BLMC (100). This means that FRHLF’s stock grew somewhat faster than BLMC’s over the last 12 months.

FRHLF's Price Growth Rating (49) in the null industry is in the same range as BLMC (78). This means that FRHLF’s stock grew similarly to BLMC’s over the last 12 months.

BLMC's P/E Growth Rating (16) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for FRHLF (67). This means that BLMC’s stock grew somewhat faster than FRHLF’s over the last 12 months.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
FRHLF
RSI
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
80%
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
76%
Momentum
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
75%
MACD
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
69%
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
72%
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
68%
Advances
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 5 days ago
70%
Declines
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 19 days ago
70%
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
77%
Aroon
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
72%
View a ticker or compare two or three
Interact to see
Advertisement
FRHLF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
Interesting Tickers
1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
1 Day
CRYPTO / NAMEPrice $Chg $Chg %
WNXM.X58.825325-0.986618
-1.65%
Wrapped NXM cryptocurrency
BRBR58.67-1.44
-2.40%
BellRing Brands
CLBK13.91-0.41
-2.86%
Columbia Financial
WRX.X0.021034-0.001013
-4.60%
WazirX cryptocurrency
REAL4.96-0.37
-6.94%
RealReal (The)

BLMC and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, BLMC has been loosely correlated with RUBLF. These tickers have moved in lockstep 36% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if BLMC jumps, then RUBLF could also see price increases.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To BLMC
1D Price
Change %
BLMC100%
N/A
RUBLF - BLMC
36%
Loosely correlated
+2.21%
DTNOF - BLMC
27%
Poorly correlated
N/A
WLTNF - BLMC
25%
Poorly correlated
N/A
FRHLF - BLMC
22%
Poorly correlated
+1.27%
ECAOF - BLMC
21%
Poorly correlated
-0.23%
More

FRHLF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, FRHLF has been closely correlated with SPGYF. These tickers have moved in lockstep 68% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is a high statistical probability that if FRHLF jumps, then SPGYF could also see price increases.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To FRHLF
1D Price
Change %
FRHLF100%
+1.27%
SPGYF - FRHLF
68%
Closely correlated
+2.98%
CRLFF - FRHLF
67%
Closely correlated
+3.37%
ZPTAF - FRHLF
64%
Loosely correlated
+2.95%
TNEYF - FRHLF
64%
Loosely correlated
+3.49%
PEYUF - FRHLF
62%
Loosely correlated
+1.70%
More