PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
ATS vs. CLF
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends
Financials

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.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ATS achieves a 4.76% return, which is significantly lower than CLF's 6.55% return. Over the past 10 years, ATS has outperformed CLF with an annualized return of 13.52%, while CLF has yielded a comparatively lower 12.38% annualized return.


ATS

1D
-3.38%
1M
-10.15%
YTD
4.76%
6M
12.48%
1Y
-2.99%
3Y*
-13.66%
5Y*
2.54%
10Y*
13.52%

CLF

1D
-4.07%
1M
38.05%
YTD
6.55%
6M
8.60%
1Y
87.17%
3Y*
-2.03%
5Y*
-6.56%
10Y*
12.38%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ATS vs. CLF - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
ATS
ATS Corporation
4.76%-9.65%-29.23%39.27%-22.16%128.07%5.58%55.37%-10.46%27.39%
CLF
Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.
6.55%41.28%-53.97%26.75%-26.00%49.52%77.38%12.72%6.66%-14.27%

Correlation

The correlation between ATS and CLF is 0.33, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.33

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.29

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.30

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.21

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 5, 2016

0.21

The correlation between ATS and CLF shifts across timeframes, from 0.21 (all time) to 0.33 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Fundamentals

EPS

ATS:

$0.97

CLF:

-$2.37

PS Ratio

ATS:

0.71

CLF:

0.38

Total Revenue (TTM)

ATS:

$2.97B

CLF:

$18.90B

Gross Profit (TTM)

ATS:

$850.80M

CLF:

-$528.00M

EBITDA (TTM)

ATS:

$357.63M

CLF:

$134.00M

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


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: 3636
Overall Rank
ATS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3838
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ATS Sortino Ratio Rank: 3434
Sortino Ratio Rank
ATS Omega Ratio Rank: 3434
Omega Ratio Rank
ATS Calmar Ratio Rank: 3737
Calmar Ratio Rank
ATS Martin Ratio Rank: 3737
Martin Ratio Rank

CLF
CLF Risk / Return Rank: 7272
Overall Rank
CLF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7777
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CLF Sortino Ratio Rank: 7272
Sortino Ratio Rank
CLF Omega Ratio Rank: 7272
Omega Ratio Rank
CLF Calmar Ratio Rank: 7171
Calmar Ratio Rank
CLF Martin Ratio Rank: 6969
Martin Ratio Rank
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.


ATSCLFDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

-0.07

1.28

-1.36

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

0.18

1.84

-1.67

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.02

1.24

-0.22

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

-0.12

1.70

-1.81

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

-0.23

3.51

-3.74

ATS vs. CLF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ATS Sharpe Ratio is -0.07, which is lower than the CLF Sharpe Ratio of 1.28. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ATS and CLF, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


ATSCLFDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

-0.07

1.28

-1.36

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.06

-0.11

+0.17

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.37

0.20

+0.17

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.35

0.14

+0.22

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.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


ATSCLFDifference

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 (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-56.76%

-74.46%

+17.70%

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

-40.80%

-85.57%

+44.77%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-19.90%

-47.60%

+27.70%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

12.78%

24.95%

-12.17%

Volatility

ATS vs. CLF - Volatility Comparison

ATS Corporation (ATS) and Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. (CLF) have volatilities of 19.42% and 18.98%, 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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


ATSCLFDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

19.42%

18.98%

+0.44%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

32.82%

45.50%

-12.68%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

40.56%

68.41%

-27.85%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

40.36%

59.44%

-19.08%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

38.64%

62.14%

-23.50%

Dividends

ATS vs. CLF - Dividend Comparison

Neither ATS nor CLF has paid dividends to shareholders.


PositionTTM2025202420232022202120202019
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%

Financials

ATS vs. CLF - Financials Comparison

This section allows you to compare key financial metrics between ATS Corporation and Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.. You can select fields from income statements, balance sheets, and cash flow statements to easily visualize and compare the financial health of both companies.


Quarterly
Annual

Total Revenue: Total amount of money received from sales and other business activities


0.001.00B2.00B3.00B4.00B5.00B6.00B20222023202420252026
747.10M
4.92B
(ATS) Total Revenue
(CLF) Total Revenue
Values in USD except per share items

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.

Gross Margin
Operating Margin
Net Margin
Quarterly
Annual

-10.0%0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%20222023202420252026
25.2%
-1.7%
Portfolio components
ATS - Gross Margin

Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, ATS Corporation reported a gross profit of 188.27M and revenue of 747.10M. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 25.2%.

CLF - Gross Margin

Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. reported a gross profit of -82.00M and revenue of 4.92B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was -1.7%.

ATS - Operating Margin

Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, ATS Corporation reported an operating income of 23.21M and revenue of 747.10M, resulting in an operating margin of 3.1%.

CLF - Operating Margin

Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. reported an operating income of -207.00M and revenue of 4.92B, resulting in an operating margin of -4.2%.

ATS - Net Margin

Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, ATS Corporation reported a net income of -16.11M and revenue of 747.10M, resulting in a net margin of -2.2%.

CLF - Net Margin

Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. reported a net income of -237.00M and revenue of 4.92B, resulting in a net margin of -4.8%.


Frequently Asked Questions


ATS and CLF have a correlation of 0.33, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

ATS has higher volatility (19.42%) compared to CLF (18.98%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ATS dropped -56.76% vs CLF's -98.78%.

CLF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.28 vs -0.07), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for ATS and CLF

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer