Advertisement
CBULF vs WWR
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 CBULF is a Hold and WWR 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).
CBULF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileWWR’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).
- CBULF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- WWR’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 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.
CBULF’s TA Score shows that 3 TA indicator(s) are bullish while WWR’s TA Score has 4 bullish TA indicator(s).
- CBULF’s TA Score: 3 bullish, 5 bearish.
- WWR’s TA Score: 4 bullish, 3 bearish.
Price Growth
CBULF (@Other Metals/Minerals) experienced а -31.67% price change this week, while WWR (@Other Metals/Minerals) price change was +1.94% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Other Metals/Minerals industry was +2.69%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +7.32%, and the average quarterly price growth was +57.14%.
Reported Earning Dates
WWR is expected to report earnings on Feb 17, 2026.
Industries' Descriptions
@Other Metals/Minerals (+2.69% 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.
| CBULF | WWR | CBULF / WWR | |
| Capitalization | 6.01M | 117M | 5% |
| EBITDA | -6.19M | -12.56M | 49% |
| Gain YTD | -37.965 | 48.221 | -79% |
| P/E Ratio | N/A | N/A | - |
| Revenue | 0 | 0 | - |
| Total Cash | -2.35K | 12.9M | -0% |
| Total Debt | 1.61M | 10.1M | 16% |
CBULF | WWR | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 21 | 9 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 25 Undervalued | 29 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 95 | 93 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 36 | 39 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 100 | 100 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | n/a | 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.
CBULF's Valuation (25) in the null industry is in the same range as WWR (29) in the Other Metals Or Minerals industry. This means that CBULF’s stock grew similarly to WWR’s over the last 12 months.
CBULF's Profit vs Risk Rating (100) in the null industry is in the same range as WWR (100) in the Other Metals Or Minerals industry. This means that CBULF’s stock grew similarly to WWR’s over the last 12 months.
WWR's SMR Rating (93) in the Other Metals Or Minerals industry is in the same range as CBULF (95) in the null industry. This means that WWR’s stock grew similarly to CBULF’s over the last 12 months.
CBULF's Price Growth Rating (36) in the null industry is in the same range as WWR (39) in the Other Metals Or Minerals industry. This means that CBULF’s stock grew similarly to WWR’s over the last 12 months.
CBULF's P/E Growth Rating (100) in the null industry is in the same range as WWR (100) in the Other Metals Or Minerals industry. This means that CBULF’s stock grew similarly to WWR’s over the last 12 months.
| CBULF | WWR | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 83% | 3 days ago 76% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 90% | 3 days ago 80% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 78% | 3 days ago 78% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 90% | 3 days ago 78% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 90% | 3 days ago 85% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | 5 days ago 76% | 9 days ago 80% |
| Declines ODDS (%) | N/A | 23 days ago 85% |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 90% | N/A |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | N/A | 3 days ago 85% |
Advertisement
CBULF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that CBULF and MRRDF have been poorly correlated (+21% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CBULF and MRRDF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CBULF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CBULF | 100% | -59.34% | ||
| MRRDF - CBULF | 21% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| WWR - CBULF | 21% Poorly correlated | +8.15% | ||
| TWRFF - CBULF | 20% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CHXMF - CBULF | 13% Poorly correlated | +11.65% | ||
| CAMZF - CBULF | 2% Poorly correlated | -4.24% | ||
More | ||||
WWR and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, WWR has been loosely correlated with NVA. These tickers have moved in lockstep 39% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if WWR jumps, then NVA could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To WWR | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WWR | 100% | +8.15% | ||
| NVA - WWR | 39% Loosely correlated | N/A | ||
| CRML - WWR | 37% Loosely correlated | +4.10% | ||
| LGO - WWR | 37% Loosely correlated | +1.90% | ||
| LAC - WWR | 35% Loosely correlated | +3.70% | ||
| ELBM - WWR | 30% Poorly correlated | -1.01% | ||
More | ||||