ATZ.TO vs. LULU

Last updated Apr 2, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about Aritzia Inc. (ATZ.TO) and Lululemon Athletica Inc. (LULU).

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.

ATZ.TO vs. LULU - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
ATZ.TO Aritzia Inc.	-1.31%	119.59%	94.33%	-41.92%	-9.55%	102.99%	35.38%	16.16%	29.24%	-27.49%
LULU Lululemon Athletica Inc.	-22.61%	-48.15%	-18.78%	56.07%	-12.32%	11.46%	47.69%	81.14%	67.86%	13.23%

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.

Fundamentals

EPS ATZ.TO : CA$2.92 LULU : $14.54
PE Ratio ATZ.TO : 39.70 LULU : 10.92
PEG Ratio ATZ.TO : 0.20 LULU : 0.53
PS Ratio ATZ.TO : 4.04 LULU : 1.72
Total Revenue (TTM) ATZ.TO : CA$3.41B LULU : $11.07B
Gross Profit (TTM) ATZ.TO : CA$1.52B LULU : $6.47B
EBITDA (TTM) ATZ.TO : CA$635.63M LULU : $2.95B

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ATZ.TO achieves a -1.31% return, which is significantly higher than LULU's -22.61% return.

ATZ.TO

• 1D: 2.02%
• 1M: -3.40%
• YTD: -1.31%
• 6M: 42.08%
• 1Y: 130.61%
• 3Y*: 38.73%
• 5Y*: 29.98%
• 10Y*: —

LULU

• 1D: 3.59%
• 1M: -8.39%
• YTD: -22.61%
• 6M: -10.82%
• 1Y: -44.82%
• 3Y*: -23.46%
• 5Y*: -10.19%
• 10Y*: 9.46%

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

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: 93
ATZ.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
ATZ.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
ATZ.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 94
ATZ.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
ATZ.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 93

LULU

LULU Risk / Return Rank: 11
LULU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6
LULU Sortino Ratio Rank: 9
LULU Omega Ratio Rank: 9
LULU Calmar Ratio Rank: 13
LULU Martin Ratio Rank: 20

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.TO	LULU	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.69	-0.92	+3.61
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.98	-1.18	+4.16
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.49	0.83	+0.65
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.96	-0.82	+5.78
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	14.16	-1.17	+15.32
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ATZ.TO vs. LULU - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ATZ.TO Sharpe Ratio is 2.69, which is higher than the LULU Sharpe Ratio of -0.92. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ATZ.TO and LULU, 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

	ATZ.TO	LULU	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.69	-0.92	+3.61
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.65	-0.25	+0.90
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.24	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.51	0.53	-0.02

Correlation

The correlation between ATZ.TO and LULU is 0.27, 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

ATZ.TO vs. LULU - Dividend Comparison

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

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

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 -70.40%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ATZ.TO and LULU.

Drawdown Indicators

	ATZ.TO	LULU	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-64.82%	-92.26%	+27.44%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-26.02%	-56.49%	+30.47%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-64.82%	-71.48%	+6.66%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-71.48%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-15.93%	-68.94%	+53.01%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-20.46%	-27.13%	+6.67%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	9.11%	39.56%	-30.45%

Volatility

ATZ.TO vs. LULU - Volatility Comparison

Aritzia Inc. (ATZ.TO) has a higher volatility of 14.03% compared to Lululemon Athletica Inc. (LULU) at 10.92%. 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.

Volatility by Period

	ATZ.TO	LULU	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	14.03%	10.92%	+3.11%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	28.16%	28.37%	-0.21%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	48.80%	49.06%	-0.26%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	46.24%	40.50%	+5.74%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	43.00%	39.33%	+3.67%

Financials

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.

ATZ.TO - Gross Margin

Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, Aritzia Inc. reported a gross profit of 471.80M and revenue of 1.04B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 45.4%.

LULU - Gross Margin

Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 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 Apr 2026, Aritzia Inc. reported an operating income of 169.65M and revenue of 1.04B, resulting in an operating margin of 16.3%.

LULU - Operating Margin

Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 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 Apr 2026, Aritzia Inc. reported a net income of 138.89M and revenue of 1.04B, resulting in a net margin of 13.4%.

LULU - Net Margin

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