CLMB vs. LRCX
Compare and contrast key facts about Climb Global Solutions (CLMB) and Lam Research Corporation (LRCX).
Performance
CLMB vs. LRCX - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
CLMB vs. LRCX - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CLMB Climb Global Solutions | -22.87% | -18.40% | 133.60% | 76.59% | -8.29% | 88.47% | 22.14% | 70.90% | -37.08% | -7.01% |
LRCX Lam Research Corporation | 24.97% | 139.16% | -6.84% | 88.63% | -40.72% | 53.66% | 64.18% | 119.33% | -24.40% | 76.21% |
Fundamentals
CLMB:
$90.02M
LRCX:
$270.39B
CLMB:
$4.71
LRCX:
$4.89
CLMB:
4.21
LRCX:
43.69
CLMB:
0.18
LRCX:
3.31
CLMB:
0.14
LRCX:
13.20
CLMB:
0.77
LRCX:
26.65
CLMB:
$652.52M
LRCX:
$20.56B
CLMB:
$105.27M
LRCX:
$10.24B
CLMB:
$36.71M
LRCX:
$7.43B
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CLMB achieves a -22.87% return, which is significantly lower than LRCX's 24.97% return. Over the past 10 years, CLMB has underperformed LRCX with an annualized return of 20.05%, while LRCX has yielded a comparatively higher 40.32% annualized return.
CLMB
- 1D
- 2.22%
- 1M
- -16.27%
- YTD
- -22.87%
- 6M
- -41.11%
- 1Y
- -28.09%
- 3Y*
- 15.25%
- 5Y*
- 27.47%
- 10Y*
- 20.05%
LRCX
- 1D
- 6.87%
- 1M
- -8.54%
- YTD
- 24.97%
- 6M
- 60.02%
- 1Y
- 196.05%
- 3Y*
- 60.68%
- 5Y*
- 28.66%
- 10Y*
- 40.32%
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
CLMB vs. LRCX — Risk / Return Rank
CLMB
LRCX
CLMB vs. LRCX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Climb Global Solutions (CLMB) and Lam Research Corporation (LRCX). 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.
| CLMB | LRCX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.60 | 3.67 | -4.28 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.67 | 3.58 | -4.25 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.92 | 1.50 | -0.58 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.59 | 9.82 | -10.40 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.43 | 31.04 | -32.47 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading graphics...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| CLMB | LRCX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.60 | 3.67 | -4.28 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.62 | 0.63 | -0.01 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.50 | 0.92 | -0.41 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.21 | 0.41 | -0.20 |
Correlation
The correlation between CLMB and LRCX is 0.13, 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
CLMB vs. LRCX - Dividend Comparison
CLMB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.64%, more than LRCX's 0.47% yield.
| TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CLMB Climb Global Solutions | 0.64% | 0.66% | 0.67% | 1.24% | 2.16% | 1.94% | 3.56% | 4.20% | 6.80% | 4.07% | 3.64% | 3.71% |
LRCX Lam Research Corporation | 0.47% | 0.57% | 1.19% | 0.95% | 1.53% | 0.78% | 1.04% | 1.54% | 2.79% | 1.01% | 1.28% | 1.36% |
Drawdowns
CLMB vs. LRCX - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CLMB drawdown since its inception was -89.12%, roughly equal to the maximum LRCX drawdown of -87.90%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CLMB and LRCX.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| CLMB | LRCX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -89.12% | -87.90% | -1.22% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -45.94% | -20.01% | -25.93% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -45.94% | -56.39% | +10.45% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -49.51% | -56.39% | +6.88% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -44.63% | -14.26% | -30.37% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -32.18% | -28.31% | -3.87% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 18.88% | 6.33% | +12.55% |
Volatility
CLMB vs. LRCX - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Climb Global Solutions (CLMB) is 10.51%, while Lam Research Corporation (LRCX) has a volatility of 20.58%. This indicates that CLMB experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than LRCX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| CLMB | LRCX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 10.51% | 20.58% | -10.07% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 33.57% | 40.44% | -6.87% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 46.68% | 53.75% | -7.07% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 44.19% | 45.53% | -1.34% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 39.86% | 44.09% | -4.23% |
Financials
CLMB vs. LRCX - Financials Comparison
This section allows you to compare key financial metrics between Climb Global Solutions and Lam Research Corporation. 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
CLMB vs. LRCX - Profitability Comparison
CLMB - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, Climb Global Solutions reported a gross profit of 29.83M and revenue of 193.85M. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 15.4%.
LRCX - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, Lam Research Corporation reported a gross profit of 2.65B and revenue of 5.34B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 49.6%.
CLMB - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, Climb Global Solutions reported an operating income of 9.52M and revenue of 193.85M, resulting in an operating margin of 4.9%.
LRCX - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, Lam Research Corporation reported an operating income of 1.81B and revenue of 5.34B, resulting in an operating margin of 33.9%.
CLMB - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, Climb Global Solutions reported a net income of 6.98M and revenue of 193.85M, resulting in a net margin of 3.6%.
LRCX - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, Lam Research Corporation reported a net income of 1.59B and revenue of 5.34B, resulting in a net margin of 29.8%.