CJCFF vs LVGLF
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 CJCFF is a Hold and LVGLF 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).
CJCFF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileLVGLF’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- CJCFF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- LVGLF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
Price Growth
CJCFF (@Precious Metals) experienced а -5.85% price change this week, while LVGLF (@Precious Metals) price change was -6.25% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Precious Metals industry was -5.24%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -2.93%, and the average quarterly price growth was -1.11%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Precious Metals (-5.24% 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.
| CJCFF | LVGLF | CJCFF / LVGLF | |
| Capitalization | 4.78M | N/A | - |
| EBITDA | 1.07M | N/A | - |
| Gain YTD | -67.403 | -24.528 | 275% |
| P/E Ratio | 6.99 | N/A | - |
| Revenue | 0 | N/A | - |
| Total Cash | 1.56M | N/A | - |
| Total Debt | 40K | N/A | - |
CJCFF | LVGLF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 93 | 94 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 90 Overvalued | 52 Fair valued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 19 | 100 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 95 | 72 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 83 | 100 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 50 | 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.
LVGLF's Valuation (52) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for CJCFF (90). This means that LVGLF’s stock grew somewhat faster than CJCFF’s over the last 12 months.
LVGLF's Profit vs Risk Rating (100) in the null industry is in the same range as CJCFF (100). This means that LVGLF’s stock grew similarly to CJCFF’s over the last 12 months.
CJCFF's SMR Rating (19) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for LVGLF (100). This means that CJCFF’s stock grew significantly faster than LVGLF’s over the last 12 months.
LVGLF's Price Growth Rating (72) in the null industry is in the same range as CJCFF (95). This means that LVGLF’s stock grew similarly to CJCFF’s over the last 12 months.
CJCFF's P/E Growth Rating (83) in the null industry is in the same range as LVGLF (100). This means that CJCFF’s stock grew similarly to LVGLF’s over the last 12 months.
| RSI ODDS (%) |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) |
| Momentum ODDS (%) |
| MACD ODDS (%) |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) |
| Advances ODDS (%) |
| Declines ODDS (%) |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) |
| Aroon ODDS (%) |
CJCFF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that CJCFF and ERYTF have been poorly correlated (+23% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that CJCFF and ERYTF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To CJCFF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CJCFF | 100% | N/A | ||
| ERYTF - CJCFF | 23% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| LVGLF - CJCFF | 22% Poorly correlated | -5.51% | ||
| WTHVF - CJCFF | 21% Poorly correlated | +7.84% | ||
| CHPGF - CJCFF | 16% Poorly correlated | +2.01% | ||
| CHKKF - CJCFF | 8% Poorly correlated | -19.19% | ||
More | ||||
LVGLF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, LVGLF has been loosely correlated with EREPF. These tickers have moved in lockstep 36% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if LVGLF jumps, then EREPF could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To LVGLF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LVGLF | 100% | -5.51% | ||
| EREPF - LVGLF | 36% Loosely correlated | +23.08% | ||
| VLMGF - LVGLF | 24% Poorly correlated | +3.38% | ||
| PLGDF - LVGLF | 24% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CLLEF - LVGLF | 23% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| SPAZF - LVGLF | 22% Poorly correlated | +0.36% | ||
More | ||||