DBLVF
Price
$0.42
Change
-$0.01 (-2.33%)
Updated
Jul 25 closing price
Capitalization
54.77M
FSUMF
Price
$12.51
Change
-$0.23 (-1.81%)
Updated
Jul 25 closing price
Capitalization
45.07B
30 days until earnings call
Interact to see
Advertisement

DBLVF vs FSUMF

Header iconDBLVF vs FSUMF Comparison
Open Charts DBLVF vs FSUMFBanner chart's image
Doubleview Gold
Price$0.42
Change-$0.01 (-2.33%)
Volume$80.57K
Capitalization54.77M
FORTESCUE
Price$12.51
Change-$0.23 (-1.81%)
Volume$10.98K
Capitalization45.07B
DBLVF vs FSUMF Comparison Chart in %
Loading...
DBLVF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
FSUMF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
DBLVF vs. FSUMF commentary
Jul 27, 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 DBLVF is a Hold and FSUMF is a Buy.

Interact to see
Advertisement
COMPARISON
Comparison
Jul 27, 2025
Stock price -- (DBLVF: $0.42 vs. FSUMF: $12.51)
Brand notoriety: DBLVF and FSUMF are both not notable
Both companies represent the Other Metals/Minerals industry
Current volume relative to the 65-day Moving Average: DBLVF: 307% vs. FSUMF: 191%
Market capitalization -- DBLVF: $54.77M vs. FSUMF: $45.07B
DBLVF [@Other Metals/Minerals] is valued at $54.77M. FSUMF’s [@Other Metals/Minerals] market capitalization is $45.07B. 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 $3.14B.

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.
According to our system of comparison, FSUMF is a better buy in the long-term than DBLVF.

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 3 TA indicator(s) are bullish while FSUMF’s TA Score has 6 bullish TA indicator(s).

  • DBLVF’s TA Score: 3 bullish, 6 bearish.
  • FSUMF’s TA Score: 6 bullish, 3 bearish.
According to our system of comparison, FSUMF is a better buy in the short-term than DBLVF.

Price Growth

DBLVF (@Other Metals/Minerals) experienced а -7.27% price change this week, while FSUMF (@Other Metals/Minerals) price change was +11.20% for the same time period.

The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Other Metals/Minerals industry was +2.18%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +15.03%, and the average quarterly price growth was +34.74%.

Reported Earning Dates

FSUMF is expected to report earnings on Aug 26, 2025.

Industries' Descriptions

@Other Metals/Minerals (+2.18% 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
FSUMF($45.1B) has a higher market cap than DBLVF($54.8M). DBLVF YTD gains are higher at: 64.202 vs. FSUMF (8.783). FSUMF has higher annual earnings (EBITDA): 9.99B vs. DBLVF (-1.7M). FSUMF has more cash in the bank: 5.22B vs. DBLVF (2.26M). DBLVF has less debt than FSUMF: DBLVF (626K) vs FSUMF (6.1B). FSUMF has higher revenues than DBLVF: FSUMF (17B) vs DBLVF (0).
DBLVFFSUMFDBLVF / FSUMF
Capitalization54.8M45.1B0%
EBITDA-1.7M9.99B-0%
Gain YTD64.2028.783731%
P/E RatioN/A7.66-
Revenue017B-
Total Cash2.26M5.22B0%
Total Debt626K6.1B0%
FUNDAMENTALS RATINGS
DBLVF vs FSUMF: Fundamental Ratings
DBLVF
FSUMF
OUTLOOK RATING
1..100
5048
VALUATION
overvalued / fair valued / undervalued
1..100
50
Fair valued
2
Undervalued
PROFIT vs RISK RATING
1..100
7180
SMR RATING
1..100
9257
PRICE GROWTH RATING
1..100
5442
P/E GROWTH RATING
1..100
10020
SEASONALITY SCORE
1..100
50n/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.

FSUMF's Valuation (2) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for DBLVF (50). This means that FSUMF’s stock grew somewhat faster than DBLVF’s over the last 12 months.

DBLVF's Profit vs Risk Rating (71) in the null industry is in the same range as FSUMF (80). This means that DBLVF’s stock grew similarly to FSUMF’s over the last 12 months.

FSUMF's SMR Rating (57) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for DBLVF (92). This means that FSUMF’s stock grew somewhat faster than DBLVF’s over the last 12 months.

FSUMF's Price Growth Rating (42) in the null industry is in the same range as DBLVF (54). This means that FSUMF’s stock grew similarly to DBLVF’s over the last 12 months.

FSUMF's P/E Growth Rating (20) 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.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
DBLVFFSUMF
RSI
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
68%
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
78%
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
69%
Momentum
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
89%
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
70%
MACD
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
85%
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
64%
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
85%
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
68%
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
84%
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
65%
Advances
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 17 days ago
79%
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
67%
Declines
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
88%
N/A
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
85%
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
75%
Aroon
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 3 days ago
75%
Bullish Trend 3 days ago
66%
View a ticker or compare two or three
Interact to see
Advertisement
DBLVF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
FSUMF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
Interesting Tickers
1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
1 Day
STOCK / NAMEPrice $Chg $Chg %
TPG58.400.83
+1.44%
TPG
STI4.60N/A
N/A
Solidion Technology Inc.
TEAM199.83N/A
N/A
Atlassian Corp
PCT15.40-0.18
-1.16%
PureCycle Technologies
EJH1.60-0.13
-7.78%
E-Home Household Service Holdings Limited

DBLVF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that DBLVF and UUSAF have been poorly correlated (+24% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that DBLVF and UUSAF's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To DBLVF
1D Price
Change %
DBLVF100%
-1.86%
UUSAF - DBLVF
24%
Poorly correlated
N/A
SFRRF - DBLVF
22%
Poorly correlated
-5.41%
FSUMF - DBLVF
21%
Poorly correlated
-1.81%
DAUGF - DBLVF
5%
Poorly correlated
N/A
CVVUF - DBLVF
3%
Poorly correlated
-0.11%
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.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To FSUMF
1D Price
Change %
FSUMF100%
-1.81%
MALRY - FSUMF
37%
Loosely correlated
+1.39%
FSUGY - FSUMF
35%
Loosely correlated
-3.12%
LUNMF - FSUMF
31%
Poorly correlated
-0.83%
LYSCF - FSUMF
29%
Poorly correlated
-1.67%
TMASF - FSUMF
28%
Poorly correlated
+4.17%
More