Advertisement
FCSUF vs RLYGF
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 FCSUF is a Hold and RLYGF 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).
FCSUF’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whileRLYGF’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- FCSUF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
- RLYGF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 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.
RLYGF’s TA Score shows that 5 TA indicator(s) are bullish.
- RLYGF’s TA Score: 5 bullish, 4 bearish.
Price Growth
FCSUF (@Precious Metals) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while RLYGF (@Precious Metals) price change was -18.19% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Precious Metals industry was +0.06%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +9.36%, and the average quarterly price growth was +54.26%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Precious Metals (+0.06% 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.
| FCSUF | RLYGF | FCSUF / RLYGF | |
| Capitalization | 33.6M | 3.89M | 865% |
| EBITDA | -5.28M | 1.49M | -355% |
| Gain YTD | 50.000 | 72.562 | 69% |
| P/E Ratio | N/A | 2.31 | - |
| Revenue | 158K | 0 | - |
| Total Cash | 27.3M | 2.73M | 1,001% |
| Total Debt | 20.2M | N/A | - |
FCSUF | ||
|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 62 Fair valued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 93 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 46 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 58 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | 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.
| FCSUF | RLYGF | |
|---|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | N/A | 3 days ago 68% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | N/A | 3 days ago 72% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | N/A | 3 days ago 74% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | N/A | 3 days ago 69% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 14% | 3 days ago 70% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 3 days ago 13% | 3 days ago 55% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| Declines ODDS (%) | N/A | N/A |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | N/A | 3 days ago 74% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | N/A | 3 days ago 44% |
Advertisement
FCSUF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that FCSUF and RLYGF have been poorly correlated (+16% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that FCSUF and RLYGF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To FCSUF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FCSUF | 100% | N/A | ||
| RLYGF - FCSUF | 16% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| TFPM - FCSUF | 9% Poorly correlated | -3.15% | ||
| BADEF - FCSUF | 3% Poorly correlated | +1.87% | ||
| AUCCF - FCSUF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| PMDRF - FCSUF | 0% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
RLYGF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that RLYGF and RNDXF have been poorly correlated (+22% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that RLYGF and RNDXF's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To RLYGF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| RLYGF | 100% | N/A | ||
| RNDXF - RLYGF | 22% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| FCSUF - RLYGF | 16% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| SLVMF - RLYGF | 6% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| TGMR - RLYGF | 3% Poorly correlated | +3.65% | ||
| ZCTSF - RLYGF | 2% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||