GLBKF
Price
$0.25
Change
+$0.10 (+66.67%)
Updated
Jul 29 closing price
Capitalization
64.27M
RMLRF
Price
$1.55
Change
-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Updated
Aug 7 closing price
Capitalization
2.13B
Interact to see
Advertisement

GLBKF vs RMLRF

Header iconGLBKF vs RMLRF Comparison
Open Charts GLBKF vs RMLRFBanner chart's image
Goldbank Mining
Price$0.25
Change+$0.10 (+66.67%)
Volume$100
Capitalization64.27M
Ramelius Resources
Price$1.55
Change-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Volume$700
Capitalization2.13B
GLBKF vs RMLRF Comparison Chart in %
Loading...
GLBKF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
RMLRF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
GLBKF vs. RMLRF commentary
Aug 11, 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 GLBKF is a Hold and RMLRF is a Hold.

Interact to see
Advertisement
COMPARISON
Comparison
Aug 11, 2025
Stock price -- (GLBKF: $0.25 vs. RMLRF: $1.55)
Brand notoriety: GLBKF and RMLRF are both not notable
Both companies represent the Precious Metals industry
Current volume relative to the 65-day Moving Average: GLBKF: 100% vs. RMLRF: 15%
Market capitalization -- GLBKF: $64.27M vs. RMLRF: $2.13B
GLBKF [@Precious Metals] is valued at $64.27M. RMLRF’s [@Precious Metals] market capitalization is $2.13B. The market cap for tickers in the [@Precious Metals] industry ranges from $76.48B to $0. The average market capitalization across the [@Precious Metals] industry is $2.45B.

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).

GLBKF’s FA Score shows that 2 FA rating(s) are green whileRMLRF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).

  • GLBKF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
  • RMLRF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
According to our system of comparison, GLBKF is a better buy in the long-term than RMLRF.

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.

GLBKF’s TA Score shows that 0 TA indicator(s) are bullish while RMLRF’s TA Score has 3 bullish TA indicator(s).

  • GLBKF’s TA Score: 0 bullish, 2 bearish.
  • RMLRF’s TA Score: 3 bullish, 7 bearish.
According to our system of comparison, GLBKF is a better buy in the short-term than RMLRF.

Price Growth

GLBKF (@Precious Metals) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while RMLRF (@Precious Metals) price change was -2.05% for the same time period.

The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Precious Metals industry was +19.60%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +8.14%, and the average quarterly price growth was +4669.58%.

Industries' Descriptions

@Precious Metals (+19.60% 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.

SUMMARIES
Loading...
FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
RMLRF($2.13B) has a higher market cap than GLBKF($64.3M). GLBKF YTD gains are higher at: 64.055 vs. RMLRF (23.016). RMLRF has higher annual earnings (EBITDA): 635M vs. GLBKF (-258.21K). RMLRF has higher revenues than GLBKF: RMLRF (1.04B) vs GLBKF (0).
GLBKFRMLRFGLBKF / RMLRF
Capitalization64.3M2.13B3%
EBITDA-258.21K635M-0%
Gain YTD64.05523.016278%
P/E RatioN/A7.94-
Revenue01.04B-
Total Cash198KN/A-
Total Debt185KN/A-
FUNDAMENTALS RATINGS
GLBKF vs RMLRF: Fundamental Ratings
GLBKF
RMLRF
OUTLOOK RATING
1..100
5050
VALUATION
overvalued / fair valued / undervalued
1..100
21
Undervalued
9
Undervalued
PROFIT vs RISK RATING
1..100
1392
SMR RATING
1..100
10036
PRICE GROWTH RATING
1..100
3660
P/E GROWTH RATING
1..100
10098
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.

RMLRF's Valuation (9) in the null industry is in the same range as GLBKF (21). This means that RMLRF’s stock grew similarly to GLBKF’s over the last 12 months.

GLBKF's Profit vs Risk Rating (13) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for RMLRF (92). This means that GLBKF’s stock grew significantly faster than RMLRF’s over the last 12 months.

RMLRF's SMR Rating (36) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for GLBKF (100). This means that RMLRF’s stock grew somewhat faster than GLBKF’s over the last 12 months.

GLBKF's Price Growth Rating (36) in the null industry is in the same range as RMLRF (60). This means that GLBKF’s stock grew similarly to RMLRF’s over the last 12 months.

RMLRF's P/E Growth Rating (98) in the null industry is in the same range as GLBKF (100). This means that RMLRF’s stock grew similarly to GLBKF’s over the last 12 months.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
GLBKFRMLRF
RSI
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
40%
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
69%
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
40%
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
61%
Momentum
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
69%
MACD
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
74%
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
9%
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
67%
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
10%
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
64%
Advances
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bullish Trend 28 days ago
69%
Declines
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bearish Trend 11 days ago
59%
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bearish Trend 4 days ago
73%
Aroon
ODDS (%)
N/A
Bullish Trend 4 days ago
67%
View a ticker or compare two or three
Interact to see
Advertisement
GLBKF
Daily Signalchanged days ago
Gain/Loss if bought
Show more...
RMLRF
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 %
ADVOF24.61N/A
N/A
ADVA AG Optical Networking
FDVA11.90N/A
N/A
FREEDOM FINL HLDGS INC.
QUTIF0.33N/A
N/A
Questor Technology, Inc.
IMCDY56.21-0.10
-0.17%
IMCD Group NV
ADYEY17.39-0.30
-1.70%
Adyen N.V.

GLBKF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, GLBKF has been loosely correlated with ZIJMY. These tickers have moved in lockstep 36% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if GLBKF jumps, then ZIJMY could also see price increases.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To GLBKF
1D Price
Change %
GLBKF100%
N/A
ZIJMY - GLBKF
36%
Loosely correlated
+3.03%
ELKMF - GLBKF
30%
Poorly correlated
N/A
OGNRF - GLBKF
23%
Poorly correlated
N/A
RMLRF - GLBKF
23%
Poorly correlated
N/A
IMRFF - GLBKF
22%
Poorly correlated
N/A
More

RMLRF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that RMLRF and NSVLF have been poorly correlated (+26% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that RMLRF and NSVLF's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To RMLRF
1D Price
Change %
RMLRF100%
N/A
NSVLF - RMLRF
26%
Poorly correlated
N/A
ZIJMF - RMLRF
24%
Poorly correlated
+7.22%
GLBKF - RMLRF
23%
Poorly correlated
N/A
TAJIF - RMLRF
23%
Poorly correlated
N/A
RVLGF - RMLRF
7%
Poorly correlated
-3.75%
More