CDBMF
Price
$0.58
Change
-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Updated
Dec 8 closing price
Capitalization
57.1M
Intraday BUY SELL Signals
CGMLF
Price
$1.05
Change
-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Updated
Dec 11 closing price
Capitalization
412.87M
Intraday BUY SELL Signals
Interact to see
Advertisement

CDBMF vs CGMLF

Header iconCDBMF vs CGMLF Comparison
Open Charts CDBMF vs CGMLFBanner chart's image
Cordoba Minerals
Price$0.58
Change-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Volume$1.38K
Capitalization57.1M
Chalice Mining
Price$1.05
Change-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Volume$4.05K
Capitalization412.87M
CDBMF vs CGMLF Comparison Chart in %
CDBMF
Daily Signal:
Gain/Loss:
CGMLF
Daily Signal:
Gain/Loss:
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
CDBMF vs. CGMLF commentary
Dec 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 CDBMF is a StrongBuy and CGMLF is a Hold.

Interact to see
Advertisement
COMPARISON
Comparison
Dec 15, 2025
Stock price -- (CDBMF: $0.58 vs. CGMLF: $1.05)
Brand notoriety: CDBMF and CGMLF are both not notable
Both companies represent the Other Metals/Minerals industry
Current volume relative to the 65-day Moving Average: CDBMF: 19% vs. CGMLF: 61%
Market capitalization -- CDBMF: $57.1M vs. CGMLF: $412.87M
CDBMF [@Other Metals/Minerals] is valued at $57.1M. CGMLF’s [@Other Metals/Minerals] market capitalization is $412.87M. The market cap for tickers in the [@Other Metals/Minerals] industry ranges from $223.12B to $0. The average market capitalization across the [@Other Metals/Minerals] industry is $2.92B.

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).

CDBMF’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whileCGMLF’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).

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

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.

CDBMF’s TA Score shows that 4 TA indicator(s) are bullish while CGMLF’s TA Score has 4 bullish TA indicator(s).

  • CDBMF’s TA Score: 4 bullish, 5 bearish.
  • CGMLF’s TA Score: 4 bullish, 4 bearish.
According to our system of comparison, CGMLF is a better buy in the short-term than CDBMF.

Price Growth

CDBMF (@Other Metals/Minerals) experienced а +0.17% price change this week, while CGMLF (@Other Metals/Minerals) price change was -7.89% 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%.

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.

SUMMARIES
Loading...
FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
CGMLF($413M) has a higher market cap than CDBMF($57.1M). CDBMF YTD gains are higher at: 108.881 vs. CGMLF (65.354). CGMLF has higher annual earnings (EBITDA): -26.99M vs. CDBMF (-31.33M).
CDBMFCGMLFCDBMF / CGMLF
Capitalization57.1M413M14%
EBITDA-31.33M-26.99M116%
Gain YTD108.88165.354167%
P/E RatioN/AN/A-
Revenue0N/A-
Total Cash12.3MN/A-
Total Debt1.67MN/A-
FUNDAMENTALS RATINGS
CDBMF vs CGMLF: Fundamental Ratings
CDBMF
CGMLF
OUTLOOK RATING
1..100
3177
VALUATION
overvalued / fair valued / undervalued
1..100
71
Overvalued
99
Overvalued
PROFIT vs RISK RATING
1..100
100100
SMR RATING
1..100
9994
PRICE GROWTH RATING
1..100
4553
P/E GROWTH RATING
1..100
100100
SEASONALITY SCORE
1..100
5038

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.

CDBMF's Valuation (71) in the null industry is in the same range as CGMLF (99). This means that CDBMF’s stock grew similarly to CGMLF’s over the last 12 months.

CDBMF's Profit vs Risk Rating (100) in the null industry is in the same range as CGMLF (100). This means that CDBMF’s stock grew similarly to CGMLF’s over the last 12 months.

CGMLF's SMR Rating (94) in the null industry is in the same range as CDBMF (99). This means that CGMLF’s stock grew similarly to CDBMF’s over the last 12 months.

CDBMF's Price Growth Rating (45) in the null industry is in the same range as CGMLF (53). This means that CDBMF’s stock grew similarly to CGMLF’s over the last 12 months.

CDBMF's P/E Growth Rating (100) in the null industry is in the same range as CGMLF (100). This means that CDBMF’s stock grew similarly to CGMLF’s over the last 12 months.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
CDBMFCGMLF
RSI
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
64%
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
49%
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
62%
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
78%
Momentum
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
72%
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
77%
MACD
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
54%
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
76%
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
56%
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
81%
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
76%
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
85%
Advances
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bullish Trend 19 days ago
70%
Declines
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 21 days ago
78%
Bearish Trend 6 days ago
77%
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
67%
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
80%
Aroon
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
79%
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
88%
View a ticker or compare two or three
Interact to see
Advertisement
CDBMF
Daily Signal:
Gain/Loss:
CGMLF
Daily Signal:
Gain/Loss:
Interesting Tickers
1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
1 Day
STOCK / NAMEPrice $Chg $Chg %
CHFFY6.76N/A
N/A
China Everbright Environment Group Ltd.
RDBBF0.18N/A
N/A
ARTICORE GROUP LTD.
KACLF1.00N/A
N/A
Kairous Acquisition Corp.
NPSCY3.99-0.04
-0.99%
Nippon Steel Corporation
HGRAF1.89-0.05
-2.75%
HydroGraph Clean Power Inc.

CDBMF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that CDBMF and CHXMF have been poorly correlated (+9% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CDBMF and CHXMF's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To CDBMF
1D Price
Change %
CDBMF100%
N/A
CHXMF - CDBMF
9%
Poorly correlated
+11.65%
CBBHF - CDBMF
6%
Poorly correlated
+6.56%
CGMLF - CDBMF
6%
Poorly correlated
N/A
CASXF - CDBMF
-2%
Poorly correlated
N/A
CBULF - CDBMF
-3%
Poorly correlated
-59.34%
More

CGMLF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that CGMLF and NAK have been poorly correlated (+31% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CGMLF and NAK's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To CGMLF
1D Price
Change %
CGMLF100%
N/A
NAK - CGMLF
31%
Poorly correlated
+8.04%
CVVUF - CGMLF
26%
Poorly correlated
+3.86%
PMETF - CGMLF
20%
Poorly correlated
-2.86%
GLNCY - CGMLF
20%
Poorly correlated
+0.49%
ATOXF - CGMLF
20%
Poorly correlated
-12.43%
More