CLMB vs. LRCX
CLMB (Climb Global Solutions) and LRCX (Lam Research Corporation) are both stocks. Both are in the Technology sector — CLMB in Electronics & Computer Distribution, LRCX in Semiconductor Equipment & Materials. Over the past 10 years, CLMB returned 20.48%/yr vs 47.12%/yr for LRCX. At a 0.13 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.
Performance
CLMB vs. LRCX - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CLMB achieves a -14.82% return, which is significantly lower than LRCX's 101.03% return. Over the past 10 years, CLMB has underperformed LRCX with an annualized return of 20.48%, while LRCX has yielded a comparatively higher 47.12% annualized return.
CLMB
- 1D
- -2.67%
- 1M
- 16.72%
- YTD
- -14.82%
- 6M
- -17.64%
- 1Y
- -18.01%
- 3Y*
- 23.09%
- 5Y*
- 26.26%
- 10Y*
- 20.48%
LRCX
- 1D
- 2.78%
- 1M
- 32.93%
- YTD
- 101.03%
- 6M
- 115.41%
- 1Y
- 313.85%
- 3Y*
- 79.31%
- 5Y*
- 40.79%
- 10Y*
- 47.12%
CLMB vs. LRCX - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CLMB Climb Global Solutions | -14.82% | -18.40% | 133.60% | 76.59% | -8.29% | 88.47% | 22.14% | 70.90% | -37.08% | -7.01% |
LRCX Lam Research Corporation | 101.03% | 139.16% | -6.84% | 88.63% | -40.72% | 53.66% | 64.18% | 119.33% | -24.40% | 76.21% |
Correlation
The correlation between CLMB and LRCX is 0.24, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.24 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.20 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.20 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.15 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 19, 1995 | 0.13 |
The correlation between CLMB and LRCX shifts across timeframes, from 0.13 (all time) to 0.24 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Fundamentals
CLMB:
$398.75M
LRCX:
$434.03B
CLMB:
$1.16
LRCX:
$5.29
CLMB:
18.94
LRCX:
65.00
CLMB:
0.80
LRCX:
4.92
CLMB:
0.57
LRCX:
20.11
CLMB:
3.37
LRCX:
41.01
CLMB:
$696.85M
LRCX:
$21.68B
CLMB:
$108.37M
LRCX:
$10.84B
CLMB:
$35.93M
LRCX:
$6.10B
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 | -0.35 | 6.34 | -6.69 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.16 | 5.04 | -5.20 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.98 | 1.67 | -0.69 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.34 | 15.81 | -16.14 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.71 | 53.72 | -54.43 |
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 charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| CLMB | LRCX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.35 | 6.34 | -6.69 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.58 | 0.89 | -0.32 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.50 | 1.06 | -0.56 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.21 | 0.44 | -0.22 |
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 charts...
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 | -53.40% | -20.01% | -33.39% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -53.40% | -47.10% | -6.30% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -53.40% | -56.39% | +2.99% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -53.40% | -56.39% | +2.99% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -38.85% | 0.00% | -38.85% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -32.23% | -28.19% | -4.04% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 25.54% | 5.87% | +19.67% |
Volatility
CLMB vs. LRCX - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Climb Global Solutions (CLMB) is 10.26%, while Lam Research Corporation (LRCX) has a volatility of 16.14%. 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 charts...
Volatility by Period
| CLMB | LRCX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 10.26% | 16.14% | -5.88% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 40.44% | 40.20% | +0.24% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 51.85% | 49.88% | +1.97% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 45.73% | 45.94% | -0.21% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 40.85% | 44.58% | -3.73% |
Dividends
CLMB vs. LRCX - Dividend Comparison
CLMB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.39%, more than LRCX's 0.29% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CLMB Climb Global Solutions | 0.39% | 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 | 0.29% | 0.57% | 1.19% | 0.95% | 1.53% | 0.78% | 1.04% | 1.54% | 2.79% | 1.01% | 1.28% | 1.36% |
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 Jun 2026, Climb Global Solutions reported a gross profit of 26.50M and revenue of 182.38M. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 14.5%.
LRCX - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Lam Research Corporation reported a gross profit of 2.91B and revenue of 5.84B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 49.8%.
CLMB - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Climb Global Solutions reported an operating income of 3.88M and revenue of 182.38M, resulting in an operating margin of 2.1%.
LRCX - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Lam Research Corporation reported an operating income of 2.05B and revenue of 5.84B, resulting in an operating margin of 35.0%.
CLMB - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Climb Global Solutions reported a net income of 3.33M and revenue of 182.38M, resulting in a net margin of 1.8%.
LRCX - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Lam Research Corporation reported a net income of 1.83B and revenue of 5.84B, resulting in a net margin of 31.3%.
Frequently Asked Questions
CLMB and LRCX have a correlation of 0.24, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
LRCX has higher volatility (16.14%) compared to CLMB (10.26%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CLMB dropped -89.12% vs LRCX's -87.90%.
LRCX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (6.34 vs -0.35), 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.
Find the right allocation for CLMB and LRCX
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