Advertisement
BTUMF vs CAHPF
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 BTUMF is a Hold and CAHPF is a StrongBuy.
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).
BTUMF’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whileCAHPF’s FA Score has 3 green FA rating(s).
- BTUMF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
- CAHPF’s FA Score: 3 green, 2 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.
BTUMF’s TA Score shows that 7 TA indicator(s) are bullish while CAHPF’s TA Score has 3 bullish TA indicator(s).
- BTUMF’s TA Score: 7 bullish, 4 bearish.
- CAHPF’s TA Score: 3 bullish, 5 bearish.
Price Growth
BTUMF (@Precious Metals) experienced а +7.51% price change this week, while CAHPF (@Precious Metals) price change was -6.16% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Precious Metals industry was +6.25%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +17.37%, and the average quarterly price growth was +95.28%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Precious Metals (+6.25% 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.
| BTUMF | CAHPF | BTUMF / CAHPF | |
| Capitalization | 9.24M | 20.4B | 0% |
| EBITDA | -664.41K | 1.93B | -0% |
| Gain YTD | 99.753 | 21.089 | 473% |
| P/E Ratio | N/A | 31.63 | - |
| Revenue | 0 | 4.01B | - |
| Total Cash | 517K | N/A | - |
| Total Debt | N/A | N/A | - |
BTUMF | CAHPF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 89 | 19 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 34 Fair valued | 17 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 24 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 95 | 89 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 35 | 36 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 100 | 23 | |
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.
CAHPF's Valuation (17) in the null industry is in the same range as BTUMF (34). This means that CAHPF’s stock grew similarly to BTUMF’s over the last 12 months.
CAHPF's Profit vs Risk Rating (24) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for BTUMF (100). This means that CAHPF’s stock grew significantly faster than BTUMF’s over the last 12 months.
CAHPF's SMR Rating (89) in the null industry is in the same range as BTUMF (95). This means that CAHPF’s stock grew similarly to BTUMF’s over the last 12 months.
BTUMF's Price Growth Rating (35) in the null industry is in the same range as CAHPF (36). This means that BTUMF’s stock grew similarly to CAHPF’s over the last 12 months.
CAHPF's P/E Growth Rating (23) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for BTUMF (100). This means that CAHPF’s stock grew significantly faster than BTUMF’s over the last 12 months.
| BTUMF | CAHPF | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 80% | 2 days ago 62% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 75% | 2 days ago 72% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 62% | 2 days ago 77% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 65% | 2 days ago 70% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 53% | 2 days ago 69% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 59% | 2 days ago 79% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | 8 days ago 54% | 2 days ago 78% |
| Declines ODDS (%) | 14 days ago 90% | 6 days ago 69% |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 85% | 2 days ago 67% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 2 days ago 44% | 2 days ago 74% |
Advertisement
| 1 Day | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| ETFs / NAME | Price $ | Chg $ | Chg % |
| HDMV | 37.16 | 0.20 | +0.55% |
| First Trust Hrzn MgdVolatil Dev Intl ETF | |||
| GMNY | 50.19 | -0.01 | -0.02% |
| Goldman Sachs Dynamic New Yor Mun IncETF | |||
| IIM | 12.39 | -0.01 | -0.08% |
| INVESCO VALUE Municipal Income TRUST | |||
| QQQI | 53.51 | -0.69 | -1.27% |
| NEOS Nasdaq-100(R) High Income ETF | |||
| FBY | 12.76 | -0.22 | -1.69% |
| YieldMax META Option Income Strategy ETF | |||
BTUMF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that BTUMF and BYAGF have been poorly correlated (+1% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that BTUMF and BYAGF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To BTUMF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BTUMF | 100% | +2.73% | ||
| BYAGF - BTUMF | 1% Poorly correlated | +1.36% | ||
| CCHI - BTUMF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CAHPF - BTUMF | -0% Poorly correlated | +5.69% | ||
| CGAU - BTUMF | -0% Poorly correlated | +3.18% | ||
| CBGZF - BTUMF | -12% Poorly correlated | +6.30% |
CAHPF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that CAHPF and CNL have been poorly correlated (+26% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CAHPF and CNL's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CAHPF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CAHPF | 100% | +5.69% | ||
| CNL - CAHPF | 26% Poorly correlated | +10.33% | ||
| NEM - CAHPF | 24% Poorly correlated | +3.80% | ||
| PAAS - CAHPF | 24% Poorly correlated | +5.67% | ||
| WGXRF - CAHPF | 24% Poorly correlated | +4.84% | ||
| OR - CAHPF | 23% Poorly correlated | +4.03% | ||
More | ||||