BGS vs. LAC

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

BGS (B&G Foods, Inc.) and LAC (Lithium Americas Corp.) are both stocks. BGS operates in Packaged Foods (Consumer Defensive), while LAC operates in Other Industrial Metals & Mining (Basic Materials). Over the past year, BGS returned 9.87% vs 71.70% for LAC. At a 0.21 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

BGS vs. LAC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in B&G Foods, Inc. (BGS) and Lithium Americas Corp. (LAC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BGS achieves a -2.65% return, which is significantly lower than LAC's 4.36% return.

BGS

• 1D: -0.25%
• 1M: -3.36%
• YTD: -2.65%
• 6M: -8.58%
• 1Y: 9.87%
• 3Y*: -25.46%
• 5Y*: -27.79%
• 10Y*: -14.86%

LAC

• 1D: 3.17%
• 1M: -9.18%
• YTD: 4.36%
• 6M: -11.13%
• 1Y: 71.70%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BGS vs. LAC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BGS B&G Foods, Inc.	-2.65%	-26.81%	-28.30%	8.06%
LAC Lithium Americas Corp.	4.36%	46.80%	-53.59%	-27.19%

Correlation

The correlation between BGS and LAC 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 2, 2023	0.21

The correlation between BGS and LAC shifts across timeframes, from 0.09 (1 year) to 0.21 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Fundamentals

Market Cap BGS : $323.22M LAC : $1.61B
EPS BGS : -$0.96 LAC : -$0.28
PB Ratio BGS : 0.80 LAC : 1.19
Total Revenue (TTM) BGS : $1.81B LAC : $0.00
Gross Profit (TTM) BGS : $388.44M LAC : -$580.22K
EBITDA (TTM) BGS : $91.70M LAC : -$52.10M

Return for Risk

BGS vs. LAC — Risk / Return Rank

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

BGS

BGS Risk / Return Rank: 47
BGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 47
BGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 46
BGS Omega Ratio Rank: 45
BGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 47
BGS Martin Ratio Rank: 49

LAC

LAC Risk / Return Rank: 69
LAC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
LAC Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
LAC Omega Ratio Rank: 76
LAC Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
LAC Martin Ratio Rank: 61

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.

BGS vs. LAC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for B&G Foods, Inc. (BGS) and Lithium Americas Corp. (LAC). 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.

	BGS	LAC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.10	0.56	-0.45
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.58	2.21	-1.62
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.07	1.25	-0.18
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.16	1.16	-1.00
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.47	1.77	-1.30

BGS vs. LAC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BGS Sharpe Ratio is 0.10, which is lower than the LAC Sharpe Ratio of 0.56. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BGS and LAC, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

BGS vs. LAC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BGS drawdown since its inception was -86.50%, which is greater than LAC's maximum drawdown of -81.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BGS and LAC.

Drawdown Indicators

	BGS	LAC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-86.50%	-81.83%	-4.67%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-33.11%	-63.08%	+29.97%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-67.36%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-84.68%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-86.50%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-83.99%	-61.18%	-22.81%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-32.06%	-63.13%	+31.07%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	11.32%	41.47%	-30.15%

Volatility

BGS vs. LAC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for B&G Foods, Inc. (BGS) is 9.65%, while Lithium Americas Corp. (LAC) has a volatility of 22.78%. This indicates that BGS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than LAC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BGS	LAC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.65%	22.78%	-13.13%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	33.85%	53.55%	-19.70%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	51.42%	132.17%	-80.75%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	49.32%	101.55%	-52.23%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	46.31%	101.55%	-55.24%

Dividends

BGS vs. LAC - Dividend Comparison

BGS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 18.86%, while LAC has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BGS B&G Foods, Inc.	18.86%	17.67%	11.03%	7.24%	14.48%	6.18%	6.85%	10.60%	6.54%	5.29%	3.94%	3.94%
LAC Lithium Americas Corp.	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Financials

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BGS and LAC in my portfolio?

BGS and LAC 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.

Which is riskier, BGS or LAC?

LAC has higher volatility (22.78%) compared to BGS (9.65%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BGS dropped -86.50% vs LAC's -81.83%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LAC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.56 vs 0.10), 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.