IPGDF vs LYSCF
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 IPGDF is a Hold and LYSCF 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).
IPGDF’s FA Score shows that 2 FA rating(s) are green whileLYSCF’s FA Score has 2 green FA rating(s).
- IPGDF’s FA Score: 2 green, 3 red.
- LYSCF’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.
LYSCF’s TA Score shows that 4 TA indicator(s) are bullish.
- LYSCF’s TA Score: 4 bullish, 4 bearish.
Price Growth
IPGDF (@Other Metals/Minerals) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while LYSCF (@Other Metals/Minerals) price change was -6.15% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Other Metals/Minerals industry was +2.44%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +8.90%, and the average quarterly price growth was +3.15%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Other Metals/Minerals (+2.44% 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.
| IPGDF | LYSCF | IPGDF / LYSCF | |
| Capitalization | 7.18B | 4.31B | 167% |
| EBITDA | 1.26B | 617M | 204% |
| Gain YTD | -1.935 | 4.738 | -41% |
| P/E Ratio | 12.74 | 11.52 | 111% |
| Revenue | 1.02B | 961M | 106% |
| Total Cash | 494M | 102M | 484% |
| Total Debt | 947M | 202M | 469% |
IPGDF | LYSCF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 35 | 17 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 18 Undervalued | 83 Overvalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 53 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 50 | 26 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 63 | 51 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 1 | 5 | |
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.
IPGDF's Valuation (18) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for LYSCF (83). This means that IPGDF’s stock grew somewhat faster than LYSCF’s over the last 12 months.
LYSCF's Profit vs Risk Rating (53) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for IPGDF (100). This means that LYSCF’s stock grew somewhat faster than IPGDF’s over the last 12 months.
LYSCF's SMR Rating (26) in the null industry is in the same range as IPGDF (50). This means that LYSCF’s stock grew similarly to IPGDF’s over the last 12 months.
LYSCF's Price Growth Rating (51) in the null industry is in the same range as IPGDF (63). This means that LYSCF’s stock grew similarly to IPGDF’s over the last 12 months.
IPGDF's P/E Growth Rating (1) in the null industry is in the same range as LYSCF (5). This means that IPGDF’s stock grew similarly to LYSCF’s over the last 12 months.
| LYSCF | |
|---|---|
| RSI ODDS (%) | 9 days ago 64% |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) | 9 days ago 74% |
| Momentum ODDS (%) | 9 days ago 86% |
| MACD ODDS (%) | 9 days ago 84% |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) | 9 days ago 80% |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) | 9 days ago 78% |
| Advances ODDS (%) | 9 days ago 81% |
| Declines ODDS (%) | 13 days ago 78% |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) | 9 days ago 63% |
| Aroon ODDS (%) | 9 days ago 80% |
IPGDF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, IPGDF has been loosely correlated with MALRY. These tickers have moved in lockstep 40% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if IPGDF jumps, then MALRY could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To IPGDF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| IPGDF | 100% | N/A | ||
| MALRY - IPGDF | 40% Loosely correlated | +0.39% | ||
| PMETF - IPGDF | 32% Poorly correlated | -1.25% | ||
| LYSDY - IPGDF | 31% Poorly correlated | -5.93% | ||
| LYSCF - IPGDF | 31% Poorly correlated | -3.46% | ||
| AMVMF - IPGDF | 27% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
More | ||||
LYSCF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, LYSCF has been closely correlated with LYSDY. These tickers have moved in lockstep 88% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is a high statistical probability that if LYSCF jumps, then LYSDY could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To LYSCF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LYSCF | 100% | -3.46% | ||
| LYSDY - LYSCF | 88% Closely correlated | -5.93% | ||
| BDNNY - LYSCF | 48% Loosely correlated | +1.46% | ||
| GLNCY - LYSCF | 44% Loosely correlated | +2.18% | ||
| PILBF - LYSCF | 43% Loosely correlated | -1.04% | ||
| GLCNF - LYSCF | 39% Loosely correlated | +1.30% | ||
More | ||||