NSUPF
Price
$0.36
Change
-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Updated
Nov 14 closing price
TETOF
Price
$0.04
Change
-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Updated
Nov 14 closing price
Ad is loading...

NSUPF vs TETOF

Header iconNSUPF vs TETOF Comparison
Open Charts NSUPF vs TETOFBanner chart's image
Northern Superior Resources
Price$0.36
Change-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Volume$463.45K
CapitalizationN/A
Tectonic Metals
Price$0.04
Change-$0.00 (-0.00%)
Volume$527.74K
CapitalizationN/A
NSUPF vs TETOF Comparison Chart
Loading...
View a ticker or compare two or three
VS
NSUPF vs. TETOF commentary
Nov 15, 2024

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 NSUPF is a Hold and TETOF is a Hold.

COMPARISON
Comparison
Nov 15, 2024
Stock price -- (NSUPF: $0.36 vs. TETOF: $0.04)
Brand notoriety: NSUPF and TETOF are both not notable
Both companies represent the Precious Metals industry
Current volume relative to the 65-day Moving Average: NSUPF: 358% vs. TETOF: 105%
Market capitalization -- NSUPF: $41.49M vs. TETOF: $22.44M
NSUPF [@Precious Metals] is valued at $41.49M. TETOF’s [@Precious Metals] market capitalization is $22.44M. The market cap for tickers in the [@Precious Metals] industry ranges from $47.49B to $0. The average market capitalization across the [@Precious Metals] industry is $1.03B.

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).

NSUPF’s FA Score shows that 0 FA rating(s) are green whileTETOF’s FA Score has 0 green FA rating(s).

  • NSUPF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
  • TETOF’s FA Score: 0 green, 5 red.
According to our system of comparison, NSUPF is a better buy in the long-term than TETOF.

Price Growth

NSUPF (@Precious Metals) experienced а -10.58% price change this week, while TETOF (@Precious Metals) price change was -13.65% for the same time period.

The average weekly price growth across all stocks in the @Precious Metals industry was -4.58%. For the same industry, the average monthly price growth was -3.92%, and the average quarterly price growth was -1.91%.

Industries' Descriptions

@Precious Metals (-4.58% 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.

FUNDAMENTALS
Fundamentals
NSUPF($41.5M) has a higher market cap than TETOF($22.4M). NSUPF YTD gains are higher at: -0.639 vs. TETOF (-61.123). NSUPF has higher annual earnings (EBITDA): -512.8K vs. TETOF (-4.38M). NSUPF has more cash in the bank: 3.74M vs. TETOF (1.47M). TETOF has less debt than NSUPF: TETOF (2.51K) vs NSUPF (73.4K). NSUPF (0) and TETOF (0) have equivalent revenues.
NSUPFTETOFNSUPF / TETOF
Capitalization41.5M22.4M185%
EBITDA-512.8K-4.38M12%
Gain YTD-0.639-61.1231%
P/E Ratio21.46N/A-
Revenue00-
Total Cash3.74M1.47M254%
Total Debt73.4K2.51K2,923%
FUNDAMENTALS RATINGS
NSUPF: Fundamental Ratings
NSUPF
OUTLOOK RATING
1..100
75
VALUATION
overvalued / fair valued / undervalued
1..100
95
Overvalued
PROFIT vs RISK RATING
1..100
70
SMR RATING
1..100
90
PRICE GROWTH RATING
1..100
55
P/E GROWTH RATING
1..100
100
SEASONALITY SCORE
1..100
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.

TECHNICAL ANALYSIS
Technical Analysis
RSI
ODDS (%)
Stochastic
ODDS (%)
Momentum
ODDS (%)
MACD
ODDS (%)
TrendWeek
ODDS (%)
TrendMonth
ODDS (%)
Advances
ODDS (%)
Declines
ODDS (%)
BollingerBands
ODDS (%)
Aroon
ODDS (%)
View a ticker or compare two or three
Ad is loading...
Interesting Tickers
1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
1 Day
STOCK / NAMEPrice $Chg $Chg %
GME27.370.91
+3.44%
GameStop Corp
AAPL228.223.10
+1.38%
Apple
SPY593.35-3.84
-0.64%
SPDR® S&P 500® ETF Trust
BTC.X87250.430000-3333.734400
-3.68%
Bitcoin cryptocurrency
TSLA311.18-19.06
-5.77%
Tesla

NSUPF and

Correlation & Price change

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

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To NSUPF
1D Price
Change %
NSUPF100%
-1.81%
STLRF - NSUPF
36%
Loosely correlated
-2.55%
CGLCF - NSUPF
35%
Loosely correlated
+5.69%
SSVRF - NSUPF
34%
Loosely correlated
+4.09%
AYASF - NSUPF
33%
Poorly correlated
-21.50%
VITFF - NSUPF
32%
Poorly correlated
N/A
More

TETOF and

Correlation & Price change

A.I.dvisor tells us that TETOF and LOMLF have been poorly correlated (+28% of the time) for the last year. This A.I.-generated data suggests there is low statistical probability that TETOF and LOMLF's prices will move in lockstep.

1D
1W
1M
1Q
6M
1Y
5Y
Ticker /
NAME
Correlation
To TETOF
1D Price
Change %
TETOF100%
+4.86%
LOMLF - TETOF
28%
Poorly correlated
+2.37%
SSVRF - TETOF
24%
Poorly correlated
+4.09%
KUYAF - TETOF
23%
Poorly correlated
-0.04%
NSUPF - TETOF
22%
Poorly correlated
-1.81%
AKEMF - TETOF
21%
Poorly correlated
-1.87%
More