CLF vs. LAC

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

CLF (Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.) and LAC (Lithium Americas Corp.) are both stocks. Both are in the Basic Materials sector — CLF in Steel, LAC in Other Industrial Metals & Mining. Over the past year, CLF returned 92.19% vs 71.70% for LAC. At a 0.40 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

CLF vs. LAC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. (CLF) 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, CLF achieves a 3.77% return, which is significantly lower than LAC's 4.36% return.

CLF

• 1D: 0.51%
• 1M: 33.66%
• YTD: 3.77%
• 6M: 8.42%
• 1Y: 92.19%
• 3Y*: -6.24%
• 5Y*: -10.83%
• 10Y*: 11.73%

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)

CLF vs. LAC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
CLF Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.	3.77%	41.28%	-53.97%	30.65%
LAC Lithium Americas Corp.	4.36%	46.80%	-53.59%	-27.19%

Correlation

The correlation between CLF and LAC is 0.40, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.40
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 2, 2023	0.40

Fundamentals

Market Cap CLF : $7.78B LAC : $1.61B
EPS CLF : -$2.37 LAC : -$0.28
PB Ratio CLF : 1.34 LAC : 1.19
Total Revenue (TTM) CLF : $18.90B LAC : $0.00
Gross Profit (TTM) CLF : -$528.00M LAC : -$580.22K
EBITDA (TTM) CLF : $134.00M LAC : -$52.10M

Return for Risk

CLF vs. LAC — Risk / Return Rank

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

CLF

CLF Risk / Return Rank: 75
CLF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
CLF Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
CLF Omega Ratio Rank: 76
CLF Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
CLF Martin Ratio Rank: 72

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.

CLF vs. LAC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. (CLF) 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.

	CLF	LAC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.35	0.56	+0.80
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.91	2.21	-0.30
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.25	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.79	1.16	+0.63
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.68	1.77	+1.91

CLF vs. LAC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CLF Sharpe Ratio is 1.35, which is higher than the LAC Sharpe Ratio of 0.56. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CLF 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

CLF vs. LAC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CLF drawdown since its inception was -98.78%, which is greater than LAC's maximum drawdown of -81.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CLF and LAC.

Drawdown Indicators

	CLF	LAC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-98.78%	-81.83%	-16.95%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-51.67%	-63.08%	+11.41%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-74.46%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-82.37%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-82.37%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-85.95%	-61.18%	-24.77%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-47.62%	-63.13%	+15.51%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	25.06%	41.47%	-16.41%

Volatility

CLF vs. LAC - Volatility Comparison

Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. (CLF) and Lithium Americas Corp. (LAC) have volatilities of 22.19% and 22.78%, 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.

Volatility by Period

	CLF	LAC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	22.19%	22.78%	-0.59%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	47.32%	53.55%	-6.23%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	68.48%	132.17%	-63.69%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	59.28%	101.55%	-42.27%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	62.12%	101.55%	-39.43%

Dividends

CLF vs. LAC - Dividend Comparison

Neither CLF nor LAC has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
CLF Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.82%	3.10%
LAC Lithium Americas Corp.	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Financials

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CLF and LAC in my portfolio?

CLF and LAC have a correlation of 0.40, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CLF or LAC?

LAC has higher volatility (22.78%) compared to CLF (22.19%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CLF dropped -98.78% vs LAC's -81.83%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CLF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.35 vs 0.56), 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.