Compare the share-price performance of up to ten junior mining companies on one chart, normalised to a common starting point so a three-cent stock and a four-dollar stock can be read against each other.
Share prices cannot be compared directly. One company trades at four cents, another at six dollars, and a chart of the two together tells you nothing except which number is larger. What matters is the percentage each has moved from a common starting point.
That is what this does: it rebases every selected company to zero on the first day of the window, so the lines show return rather than price. Ten companies can then be read against each other, and against the period, at a glance.
The value is mostly in the divergences. When companies with similar assets in similar jurisdictions separate sharply, the gap is company-specific — a discovery, a financing, a permitting decision, or a market realisation. Finding the date of the divergence is usually the fastest route to understanding what the market thinks about a name.
The normalised curves all start at zero, so vertical distance between two lines is the difference in return over the window, not a difference in price.
The point where lines separate matters more than where they end. A gap that opened on a single date points at an event; a gap that widened steadily points at a gradual repricing, which is often the more durable signal.
Your choice of window is an argument. Any comparison can be made to favour a company by choosing when it begins. Look at several windows before concluding anything, and be suspicious of a single flattering chart — including one you produced yourself.
Volatility is visible in the shape of each line. Two companies can finish the window at the same return having taken very different routes, and the smoother one is generally the one with a broader shareholder base.
Use it comparatively rather than absolutely. A company up 40% over a window when its peer group is up 60% has underperformed, and that gap is the thing worth explaining — the sector tide lifted everything, and this one lifted less.
The most useful setup is a group deliberately chosen to be similar: same commodity, same jurisdiction, similar stage. Any divergence within a group like that is company-specific by construction, which makes it worth investigating. Comparing a gold explorer against a lithium developer produces a chart that mostly reflects two different commodity cycles.
Sustained underperformance against genuine peers usually has a cause the market has identified and you have not. Dilution is the most common — check the Dilution Tracker before concluding a laggard is simply unloved.
Up to ten companies can be charted at once over a window between one week and roughly thirteen months, defaulting to 90 days. Each series is normalised to its first available day in the window as zero percent, and only companies with price history appear in the picker.
Because absolute prices are not comparable. A company at four cents and one at six dollars produce a chart where the cheaper stock is a flat line at the bottom regardless of how it performed. Rebasing both to zero on day one converts the chart into percentage return, which is the quantity that actually matters to a holder.
Look at several. Any single window embeds an argument, because the starting date determines which company looks best. Checking 90 days, six months and a year together tends to reveal whether a gap is a durable repricing or an artefact of where the chart begins.
Ones that are genuinely alike — same commodity, similar jurisdiction, similar development stage. Divergence within a group like that is company-specific by construction and therefore informative. Comparing across commodities mostly charts two different commodity cycles against each other.
No. A consolidation or rollback appears as a large price change even though shareholder value is unchanged, so a curve spanning one should be treated with caution.