ATS vs. CLF

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about ATS Corporation (ATS) and Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. (CLF).

Performance

ATS vs. CLF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ATS Corporation (ATS) and Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. (CLF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

ATS vs. CLF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
ATS ATS Corporation	2.40%	-9.65%	-29.23%	39.27%	-22.16%	128.07%	5.58%	55.37%	-10.46%	27.39%
CLF Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.	-36.37%	41.28%	-53.97%	26.75%	-26.00%	49.52%	77.38%	12.72%	6.66%	-14.27%

Fundamentals

EPS ATS : $0.19 CLF : -$4.48
PS Ratio ATS : 0.99 CLF : 0.15
Total Revenue (TTM) ATS : $2.80B CLF : $18.61B
Gross Profit (TTM) ATS : $724.32M CLF : -$860.00M
EBITDA (TTM) ATS : $227.47M CLF : -$167.00M

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ATS achieves a 2.40% return, which is significantly higher than CLF's -36.37% return. Over the past 10 years, ATS has outperformed CLF with an annualized return of 13.72%, while CLF has yielded a comparatively lower 11.55% annualized return.

ATS

• 1D: 3.98%
• 1M: -11.74%
• YTD: 2.40%
• 6M: 7.63%
• 1Y: 13.12%
• 3Y*: -12.18%
• 5Y*: 5.21%
• 10Y*: 13.72%

CLF

• 1D: 4.19%
• 1M: -20.73%
• YTD: -36.37%
• 6M: -30.74%
• 1Y: 2.80%
• 3Y*: -22.75%
• 5Y*: -15.33%
• 10Y*: 11.55%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Return for Risk

ATS vs. CLF — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

ATS

ATS Risk / Return Rank: 50
ATS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 51
ATS Sortino Ratio Rank: 50
ATS Omega Ratio Rank: 48
ATS Calmar Ratio Rank: 50
ATS Martin Ratio Rank: 49

CLF

CLF Risk / Return Rank: 43
CLF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
CLF Sortino Ratio Rank: 45
CLF Omega Ratio Rank: 45
CLF Calmar Ratio Rank: 42
CLF Martin Ratio Rank: 41

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

ATS vs. CLF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ATS Corporation (ATS) and Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. (CLF). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

	ATS	CLF	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	0.28	0.04	+0.25
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	0.81	0.61	+0.21
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.10	1.08	+0.02
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.34	-0.02	+0.36
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	0.70	-0.04	+0.74
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ATS vs. CLF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ATS Sharpe Ratio is 0.28, which is higher than the CLF Sharpe Ratio of 0.04. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ATS and CLF, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	ATS	CLF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.28	0.04	+0.25
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.13	-0.26	+0.39
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.38	0.18	+0.20
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.36	0.11	+0.25

Correlation

The correlation between ATS and CLF is 0.21, which is considered to be low. This implies their price changes are not closely related. A low correlation is generally favorable for portfolio diversification, as it helps to reduce overall risk by spreading it across multiple assets with different performance patterns.

Dividends

ATS vs. CLF - Dividend Comparison

Neither ATS nor CLF has paid dividends to shareholders.

	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
ATS ATS Corporation	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
CLF Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.82%	3.10%

Drawdowns

ATS vs. CLF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ATS drawdown since its inception was -56.76%, smaller than the maximum CLF drawdown of -98.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ATS and CLF.

Drawdown Indicators

	ATS	CLF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-56.76%	-98.78%	+42.02%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-25.80%	-51.67%	+25.87%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-56.76%	-82.37%	+25.61%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-56.76%	-82.37%	+25.61%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-42.13%	-91.39%	+49.26%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-19.63%	-47.41%	+27.78%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	12.59%	21.55%	-8.96%

Volatility

ATS vs. CLF - Volatility Comparison

ATS Corporation (ATS) and Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. (CLF) have volatilities of 14.42% and 14.58%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ATS	CLF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	14.42%	14.58%	-0.16%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	28.89%	53.80%	-24.91%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	46.77%	77.01%	-30.24%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	39.68%	59.32%	-19.64%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	38.44%	64.81%	-26.37%

Financials

ATS vs. CLF - Profitability Comparison

The chart below illustrates the profitability comparison between ATS Corporation and Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. over time, highlighting three key metrics: Gross Profit Margin, Operating Margin, and Net Profit Margin.

ATS - Gross Margin

Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, ATS Corporation reported a gross profit of 223.79M and revenue of 760.03M. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 29.4%.

CLF - Gross Margin

Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. reported a gross profit of -214.00M and revenue of 4.31B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was -5.0%.

ATS - Operating Margin

Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, ATS Corporation reported an operating income of 63.13M and revenue of 760.03M, resulting in an operating margin of 8.3%.

CLF - Operating Margin

Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. reported an operating income of -191.00M and revenue of 4.31B, resulting in an operating margin of -4.4%.

ATS - Net Margin

Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, ATS Corporation reported a net income of 29.92M and revenue of 760.03M, resulting in a net margin of 3.9%.

CLF - Net Margin

Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. reported a net income of -249.00M and revenue of 4.31B, resulting in a net margin of -5.8%.