Advertisement
MLGCF vs TOEYF
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 MLGCF is a Hold and TOEYF 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).
MLGCF’s FA Score shows that 1 FA rating(s) are green whileTOEYF’s FA Score has 1 green FA rating(s).
- MLGCF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
- TOEYF’s FA Score: 1 green, 4 red.
Price Growth
MLGCF (@Other Metals/Minerals) experienced а 0.00% price change this week, while TOEYF (@Other Metals/Minerals) price change was 0.00% for the same time period.
The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Other Metals/Minerals industry was +3.32%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was +12.67%, and the average quarterly price growth was +29.24%.
Industries' Descriptions
@Other Metals/Minerals (+3.32% 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.
| MLGCF | TOEYF | MLGCF / TOEYF | |
| Capitalization | 1.24M | 26.1M | 5% |
| EBITDA | N/A | -11.68M | - |
| Gain YTD | 3.806 | -30.472 | -12% |
| P/E Ratio | N/A | N/A | - |
| Revenue | N/A | N/A | - |
| Total Cash | N/A | 3.65M | - |
| Total Debt | N/A | 15M | - |
MLGCF | TOEYF | ||
|---|---|---|---|
OUTLOOK RATING 1..100 | 50 | 50 | |
VALUATION overvalued / fair valued / undervalued 1..100 | 89 Overvalued | 31 Undervalued | |
PROFIT vs RISK RATING 1..100 | 100 | 100 | |
SMR RATING 1..100 | 97 | 96 | |
PRICE GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 64 | 82 | |
P/E GROWTH RATING 1..100 | 2 | 100 | |
SEASONALITY SCORE 1..100 | n/a | 50 |
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.
TOEYF's Valuation (31) in the null industry is somewhat better than the same rating for MLGCF (89). This means that TOEYF’s stock grew somewhat faster than MLGCF’s over the last 12 months.
TOEYF's Profit vs Risk Rating (100) in the null industry is in the same range as MLGCF (100). This means that TOEYF’s stock grew similarly to MLGCF’s over the last 12 months.
TOEYF's SMR Rating (96) in the null industry is in the same range as MLGCF (97). This means that TOEYF’s stock grew similarly to MLGCF’s over the last 12 months.
MLGCF's Price Growth Rating (64) in the null industry is in the same range as TOEYF (82). This means that MLGCF’s stock grew similarly to TOEYF’s over the last 12 months.
MLGCF's P/E Growth Rating (2) in the null industry is significantly better than the same rating for TOEYF (100). This means that MLGCF’s stock grew significantly faster than TOEYF’s over the last 12 months.
| RSI ODDS (%) |
| Stochastic ODDS (%) |
| Momentum ODDS (%) |
| MACD ODDS (%) |
| TrendWeek ODDS (%) |
| TrendMonth ODDS (%) |
| Advances ODDS (%) |
| Declines ODDS (%) |
| BollingerBands ODDS (%) |
| Aroon ODDS (%) |
Advertisement
MLGCF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, MLGCF has been loosely correlated with PPZRF. These tickers have moved in lockstep 59% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if MLGCF jumps, then PPZRF could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To MLGCF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MLGCF | 100% | N/A | ||
| PPZRF - MLGCF | 59% Loosely correlated | N/A | ||
| CAXPF - MLGCF | 31% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| GOCOF - MLGCF | 30% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| TOEYF - MLGCF | 28% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| GLNLF - MLGCF | 26% Poorly correlated | +19.24% | ||
More | ||||
TOEYF and
Correlation & Price change
A.I.dvisor indicates that over the last year, TOEYF has been loosely correlated with GOCOF. These tickers have moved in lockstep 41% of the time. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is some statistical probability that if TOEYF jumps, then GOCOF could also see price increases.
| Ticker / NAME | Correlation To TOEYF | 1D Price Change % | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TOEYF | 100% | N/A | ||
| GOCOF - TOEYF | 41% Loosely correlated | N/A | ||
| CAXPF - TOEYF | 40% Loosely correlated | N/A | ||
| MLGCF - TOEYF | 28% Poorly correlated | N/A | ||
| LITRF - TOEYF | 22% Poorly correlated | +0.78% | ||
| TRBMF - TOEYF | 11% Poorly correlated | -4.22% | ||
More | ||||