PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
ATZ.TO vs. LULU
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends
Financials

Performance

ATZ.TO vs. LULU - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a CA$10,000 investment in Aritzia Inc. (ATZ.TO) and Lululemon Athletica Inc. (LULU). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Different Trading Currencies

ATZ.TO is traded in CAD, while LULU is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the LULU values have been converted to CAD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ATZ.TO achieves a 36.63% return, which is significantly higher than LULU's -38.58% return.


ATZ.TO

1D
1.36%
1M
14.94%
YTD
36.63%
6M
45.10%
1Y
135.41%
3Y*
63.82%
5Y*
39.74%
10Y*

LULU

1D
0.06%
1M
-0.34%
YTD
-38.58%
6M
-31.13%
1Y
-61.88%
3Y*
-29.06%
5Y*
-15.13%
10Y*
7.25%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ATZ.TO vs. LULU - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
ATZ.TO
Aritzia Inc.
36.63%119.59%94.33%-41.92%-9.55%102.99%35.38%16.16%29.24%-27.49%
LULU
Lululemon Athletica Inc.
-38.58%-48.15%-18.78%56.07%-12.32%11.46%47.69%81.14%67.86%13.23%

Correlation

The correlation between ATZ.TO and LULU is 0.36, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


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

0.36

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

0.28

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

0.32

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 4, 2016

0.26

Fundamentals

EPS

ATZ.TO:

CA$3.19

LULU:

$14.61

PE Ratio

ATZ.TO:

50.25

LULU:

8.62

PEG Ratio

ATZ.TO:

1.00

LULU:

0.42

PS Ratio

ATZ.TO:

5.18

LULU:

1.36

Total Revenue (TTM)

ATZ.TO:

CA$3.70B

LULU:

$11.07B

Gross Profit (TTM)

ATZ.TO:

CA$1.65B

LULU:

$6.47B

EBITDA (TTM)

ATZ.TO:

CA$736.90M

LULU:

$2.95B

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

ATZ.TO vs. LULU — Risk / Return Rank

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

ATZ.TO
ATZ.TO Risk / Return Rank: 9494
Overall Rank
ATZ.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9696
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ATZ.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 9494
Sortino Ratio Rank
ATZ.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 9393
Omega Ratio Rank
ATZ.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 9393
Calmar Ratio Rank
ATZ.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 9393
Martin Ratio Rank

LULU
LULU Risk / Return Rank: 33
Overall Rank
LULU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 11
Sharpe Ratio Rank
LULU Sortino Ratio Rank: 22
Sortino Ratio Rank
LULU Omega Ratio Rank: 22
Omega Ratio Rank
LULU Calmar Ratio Rank: 33
Calmar Ratio Rank
LULU Martin Ratio Rank: 99
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.

ATZ.TO vs. LULU - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Aritzia Inc. (ATZ.TO) and Lululemon Athletica Inc. (LULU). 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.


ATZ.TOLULUDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+4.99

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+6.14

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.53

0.71

+0.82

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

5.87

-0.97

+6.83

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

16.59

-1.35

+17.94

ATZ.TO vs. LULU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ATZ.TO Sharpe Ratio is 3.68, which is higher than the LULU Sharpe Ratio of -1.32. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ATZ.TO and LULU, 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


ATZ.TOLULUDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.68

-1.32

+4.99

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.86

-0.37

+1.23

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.18

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.60

0.51

+0.09

Drawdowns

ATZ.TO vs. LULU - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ATZ.TO drawdown since its inception was -64.82%, smaller than the maximum LULU drawdown of -76.07%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ATZ.TO and LULU.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


ATZ.TOLULUDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-64.82%

-76.07%

+11.25%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-23.22%

-64.28%

+41.06%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-46.84%

-76.07%

+29.23%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-64.82%

-76.07%

+11.25%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-76.07%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-74.41%

+74.41%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-20.16%

-18.47%

-1.69%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

8.19%

45.93%

-37.74%

Volatility

ATZ.TO vs. LULU - Volatility Comparison

Aritzia Inc. (ATZ.TO) has a higher volatility of 12.91% compared to Lululemon Athletica Inc. (LULU) at 9.60%. This indicates that ATZ.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than LULU based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


ATZ.TOLULUDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

12.91%

9.60%

+3.31%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

30.48%

31.30%

-0.82%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

37.09%

47.26%

-10.17%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

46.72%

41.04%

+5.68%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

43.04%

39.64%

+3.40%

Dividends

ATZ.TO vs. LULU - Dividend Comparison

Neither ATZ.TO nor LULU has paid dividends to shareholders.


Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Financials

ATZ.TO vs. LULU - Financials Comparison

This section allows you to compare key financial metrics between Aritzia Inc. and Lululemon Athletica 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


0.001.00B2.00B3.00B4.00BJulyOctober2022AprilJulyOctober2023AprilJulyOctober2024AprilJulyOctober2025AprilJulyOctober2026
1.19B
2.57B
(ATZ.TO) Total Revenue
(LULU) Total Revenue
Please note, different currencies. ATZ.TO values in CAD, LULU values in USD

ATZ.TO vs. LULU - Profitability Comparison

The chart below illustrates the profitability comparison between Aritzia Inc. and Lululemon Athletica Inc. over time, highlighting three key metrics: Gross Profit Margin, Operating Margin, and Net Profit Margin.

Gross Margin
Operating Margin
Net Margin
Quarterly
Annual

35.0%40.0%45.0%50.0%55.0%60.0%JulyOctober2022AprilJulyOctober2023AprilJulyOctober2024AprilJulyOctober2025AprilJulyOctober2026
42.8%
55.6%
Portfolio components
ATZ.TO - Gross Margin

Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Aritzia Inc. reported a gross profit of 507.19M and revenue of 1.19B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 42.8%.

LULU - Gross Margin

Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Lululemon Athletica Inc. reported a gross profit of 1.43B and revenue of 2.57B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 55.6%.

ATZ.TO - Operating Margin

Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Aritzia Inc. reported an operating income of 183.02M and revenue of 1.19B, resulting in an operating margin of 15.4%.

LULU - Operating Margin

Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Lululemon Athletica Inc. reported an operating income of 444.69M and revenue of 2.57B, resulting in an operating margin of 17.3%.

ATZ.TO - Net Margin

Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Aritzia Inc. reported a net income of 134.27M and revenue of 1.19B, resulting in a net margin of 11.3%.

LULU - Net Margin

Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Lululemon Athletica Inc. reported a net income of 306.84M and revenue of 2.57B, resulting in a net margin of 12.0%.


Frequently Asked Questions


ATZ.TO and LULU have a correlation of 0.36, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for ATZ.TO and LULU

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