BAM.TO vs. CNQ.TO
BAM.TO (Brookfield Asset Management Ltd) and CNQ.TO (Canadian Natural Resources Limited) are both stocks. BAM.TO operates in Asset Management (Financial Services), while CNQ.TO operates in Oil & Gas E&P (Energy). Over the past 3 years, BAM.TO returned 18.57%/yr vs 27.02%/yr for CNQ.TO. At a 0.17 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.
Performance
BAM.TO vs. CNQ.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BAM.TO achieves a -6.38% return, which is significantly lower than CNQ.TO's 37.61% return.
BAM.TO
- 1D
- 1.48%
- 1M
- -1.81%
- YTD
- -6.38%
- 6M
- -9.11%
- 1Y
- -7.86%
- 3Y*
- 18.57%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
CNQ.TO
- 1D
- -0.19%
- 1M
- -2.91%
- YTD
- 37.61%
- 6M
- 40.79%
- 1Y
- 43.07%
- 3Y*
- 27.02%
- 5Y*
- 33.86%
- 10Y*
- 23.43%
BAM.TO vs. CNQ.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BAM.TO Brookfield Asset Management Ltd | -6.38% | -4.85% | 51.69% | 42.64% | 33.69% |
CNQ.TO Canadian Natural Resources Limited | 37.61% | 10.42% | 8.27% | 26.98% | -4.21% |
Correlation
The correlation between BAM.TO and CNQ.TO is -0.09, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.09 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.14 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 1, 2022 | 0.17 |
The correlation between BAM.TO and CNQ.TO shifts across timeframes, from -0.09 (1 year) to 0.17 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Fundamentals
BAM.TO:
CA$107.08B
CNQ.TO:
CA$132.89B
BAM.TO:
$1.54
CNQ.TO:
CA$4.65
BAM.TO:
30.56
CNQ.TO:
13.64
BAM.TO:
0.05
CNQ.TO:
0.66
BAM.TO:
15.53
CNQ.TO:
3.34
BAM.TO:
8.91
CNQ.TO:
2.98
BAM.TO:
$4.94B
CNQ.TO:
CA$39.61B
BAM.TO:
$3.48B
CNQ.TO:
CA$12.42B
BAM.TO:
$3.14B
CNQ.TO:
CA$17.78B
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
BAM.TO vs. CNQ.TO — Risk / Return Rank
BAM.TO
CNQ.TO
BAM.TO vs. CNQ.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Brookfield Asset Management Ltd (BAM.TO) and Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNQ.TO). 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.
Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.
| BAM.TO | CNQ.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -2.02 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.44 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.96 | 1.28 | -0.32 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.35 | 3.12 | -3.47 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.64 | 7.98 | -8.63 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
BAM.TO vs. CNQ.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BAM.TO drawdown since its inception was -30.80%, smaller than the maximum CNQ.TO drawdown of -74.63%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BAM.TO and CNQ.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BAM.TO | CNQ.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -30.80% | -74.63% | +43.83% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -30.31% | -15.33% | -14.98% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -30.80% | -33.12% | +2.32% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -33.12% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -74.63% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -21.54% | -8.72% | -12.82% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -9.24% | -17.63% | +8.39% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 16.31% | 5.98% | +10.33% |
Volatility
BAM.TO vs. CNQ.TO - Volatility Comparison
Brookfield Asset Management Ltd (BAM.TO) has a higher volatility of 9.78% compared to Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNQ.TO) at 8.91%. This indicates that BAM.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CNQ.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BAM.TO | CNQ.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 9.78% | 8.91% | +0.87% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 22.05% | 24.23% | -2.18% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 28.95% | 28.98% | -0.03% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 41.28% | 30.61% | +10.67% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 41.28% | 38.12% | +3.16% |
Dividends
BAM.TO vs. CNQ.TO - Dividend Comparison
BAM.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.93%, more than CNQ.TO's 3.77% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BAM.TO Brookfield Asset Management Ltd | 3.93% | 3.40% | 2.67% | 3.27% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
CNQ.TO Canadian Natural Resources Limited | 2.84% | 5.05% | 6.00% | 8.53% | 12.23% | 7.63% | 11.35% | 7.29% | 8.31% | 5.00% | 4.49% | 6.22% |
Financials
BAM.TO vs. CNQ.TO - Financials Comparison
This section allows you to compare key financial metrics between Brookfield Asset Management Ltd and Canadian Natural Resources Limited. You can select fields from income statements, balance sheets, and cash flow statements to easily visualize and compare the financial health of both companies.
Total Revenue: Total amount of money received from sales and other business activities
BAM.TO vs. CNQ.TO - Profitability Comparison
BAM.TO - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Brookfield Asset Management Ltd reported a gross profit of 1.06B and revenue of 1.32B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 80.7%.
CNQ.TO - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Canadian Natural Resources Limited reported a gross profit of 3.47B and revenue of 10.81B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 32.1%.
BAM.TO - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Brookfield Asset Management Ltd reported an operating income of 595.08M and revenue of 1.32B, resulting in an operating margin of 45.2%.
CNQ.TO - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Canadian Natural Resources Limited reported an operating income of 2.67B and revenue of 10.81B, resulting in an operating margin of 24.7%.
BAM.TO - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Brookfield Asset Management Ltd reported a net income of 606.89M and revenue of 1.32B, resulting in a net margin of 46.1%.
CNQ.TO - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Canadian Natural Resources Limited reported a net income of 1.35B and revenue of 10.81B, resulting in a net margin of 12.5%.
Frequently Asked Questions
BAM.TO and CNQ.TO have a correlation of -0.09, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
Find the right allocation for BAM.TO and CNQ.TO
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