FTBYF vs PLG
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 FTBYF is a Hold and PLG 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).
FTBYF’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whilePLG’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).
- FTBYF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
- PLG’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.
PLG’s TA Score shows that 6 TA indicator(s) are bullish.
- PLG’s TA Score: 6 bullish, 3 bearish.
Price Growth
FTBYF (@Precious Metals) experienced а +5.09% price change this week, while PLG (@Precious Metals) price change was +10.34% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Precious Metals industry was +8.01%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +8.39%, and the average quarterly price growth was +15.89%.
Reported Earning Dates
PLG is expected to report earnings on Jul 10, 2025.
Industries' Descriptions
@Precious Metals (+8.01% 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.
| FTBYF | PLG | FTBYF / PLG | |
| Capitalization | 5.73M | 119M | 5% |
| EBITDA | -1.45M | -5.09M | 29% |
| Gain YTD | 170.486 | 0.000 | - |
| P/E Ratio | N/A | N/A | - |
| Revenue | 0 | 0 | - |
| Total Cash | 94.5K | 7.11M | 1% |
| Total Debt | 156K | 302K | 52% |
FTBYF | PLG | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 37 Fair valued | 96 Overvalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 86 | 93 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 92 | 94 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 34 | 73 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 100 | 71 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | n/a | 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.
FTBYF's Valuation (37) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for PLG (96) in the Precious Metals industry. This means that FTBYF’s stock grew somewhat faster than PLG’s over the last 12 months.
FTBYF's Profit vs Risk Rating (86) in the null industry is in the same range as PLG (93) in the Precious Metals industry. This means that FTBYF’s stock grew similarly to PLG’s over the last 12 months.
FTBYF's SMR Rating (92) in the null industry is in the same range as PLG (94) in the Precious Metals industry. This means that FTBYF’s stock grew similarly to PLG’s over the last 12 months.
FTBYF's Price Growth Rating (34) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for PLG (73) in the Precious Metals industry. This means that FTBYF’s stock grew somewhat faster than PLG’s over the last 12 months.
PLG's P/E Growth Rating (71) in the Precious Metals industry is in the same range as FTBYF (100) in the null industry. This means that PLG’s stock grew similarly to FTBYF’s over the last 12 months.
| PLG | |
|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 89% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 84% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 78% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 83% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 76% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 82% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | 7 days ago 72% |
| Declines ODDS (%) | 14 days ago 82% |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | 4 days ago 81% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | N/A |
FTBYF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor tells us that FTBYF and PLG have been poorly correlated (+20% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that FTBYF and PLG's prices will move in lockstep.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To FTBYF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FTBYF | 100% | +3.19% | ||
| PLG - FTBYF | 20% Poorly correlated | -2.29% | ||
| GFIOF - FTBYF | 11% Poorly correlated | -3.73% | ||
| GFKRF - FTBYF | 9% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| GGLXF - FTBYF | 8% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| GBBFF - FTBYF | 5% Poorly correlated | -5.05% | ||
More | ||||
PLG and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, PLG has been loosely correlated with CDE. These tickers have moved in lockstep 56% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if PLG jumps, then CDE could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To PLG | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PLG | 100% | -2.29% | ||
| CDE - PLG | 56% Loosely correlated | -3.83% | ||
| SBSW - PLG | 54% Loosely correlated | +1.43% | ||
| NEWP - PLG | 54% Loosely correlated | N/A | ||
| MTA - PLG | 53% Loosely correlated | -0.95% | ||
| ASM - PLG | 53% Loosely correlated | -1.47% | ||
More | ||||