Advertisement
DBLVF vs FSUMF
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 DBLVF is a Hold and FSUMF 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).
DBLVF’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whileFSUMF’s FA Score has 2 green FA rating(s).
- DBLVF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
- FSUMF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 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.
DBLVF’s TA Score shows that 7 TA indicator(s) are bullish while FSUMF’s TA Score has 4 bullish TA indicator(s).
- DBLVF’s TA Score: 7 bullish, 3 bearish.
- FSUMF’s TA Score: 4 bullish, 4 bearish.
Price Growth
DBLVF (@Other Metals/Minerals) experienced а -2.36% price change this week, while FSUMF (@Other Metals/Minerals) price change was -0.78% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Other Metals/Minerals industry was +4.50%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +7.33%, and the average quarterly price growth was +56.51%.
Reported Earning Dates
FSUMF is expected to report earnings on Oct 30, 2025.
Industries' Descriptions
@Other Metals/Minerals (+4.50% 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.
| DBLVF | FSUMF | DBLVF / FSUMF | |
| Capitalization | 95.3M | 37.9B | 0% |
| EBITDA | -2.84M | N/A | - |
| Gain YTD | 72.763 | 10.000 | 728% |
| P/E Ratio | N/A | 11.53 | - |
| Revenue | 0 | N/A | - |
| Total Cash | 4.22M | N/A | - |
| Total Debt | N/A | N/A | - |
DBLVF | FSUMF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 51 Fair valued | 4 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 78 | 93 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 95 | 40 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 46 | 46 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 100 | 10 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 50 | 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.
FSUMF's Valuation (4) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for DBLVF (51). This means that FSUMF’s stock grew somewhat faster than DBLVF’s over the last 12 months.
DBLVF's Profit vs Risk Rating (78) in the null industry is in the same range as FSUMF (93). This means that DBLVF’s stock grew similarly to FSUMF’s over the last 12 months.
FSUMF's SMR Rating (40) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for DBLVF (95). This means that FSUMF’s stock grew somewhat faster than DBLVF’s over the last 12 months.
FSUMF's Price Growth Rating (46) in the null industry is in the same range as DBLVF (46). This means that FSUMF’s stock grew similarly to DBLVF’s over the last 12 months.
FSUMF's P/E Growth Rating (10) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for DBLVF (100). This means that FSUMF’s stock grew significantly faster than DBLVF’s over the last 12 months.
| DBLVF | FSUMF | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 90% | 4 days ago 77% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 83% | 4 days ago 74% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 85% | 4 days ago 64% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 85% | 4 days ago 83% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 78% | 4 days ago 72% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 80% | 4 days ago 67% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | 6 days ago 79% | 12 days ago 67% |
| Declines ODDS (%) | 12 days ago 89% | N/A |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 90% | 4 days ago 74% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 78% | 4 days ago 60% |
Advertisement
DBLVF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that DBLVF and FSUMF have been poorly correlated (+21% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that DBLVF and FSUMF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To DBLVF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DBLVF | 100% | -6.36% | ||
| FSUMF - DBLVF | 21% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| DAUGF - DBLVF | 5% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| CVVUF - DBLVF | 3% Poorly correlated | -1.37% | ||
| DCNNF - DBLVF | 3% Poorly correlated | +23.08% | ||
| CXOXF - DBLVF | 2% Poorly correlated | -8.85% | ||
More | ||||
FSUMF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, FSUMF has been loosely correlated with MALRY. These tickers have moved in lockstep 37% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if FSUMF jumps, then MALRY could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To FSUMF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FSUMF | 100% | N/A | ||
| MALRY - FSUMF | 37% Loosely correlated | +0.08% | ||
| FSUGY - FSUMF | 35% Loosely correlated | +0.15% | ||
| LYSCF - FSUMF | 29% Poorly correlated | -2.55% | ||
| TMASF - FSUMF | 28% Poorly correlated | -5.05% | ||
| RIO - FSUMF | 27% Poorly correlated | +2.42% | ||
More | ||||