PortfoliosLab logo
CLMB vs. LRCX
Performance
Risk-Adjusted Performance
Dividends
Drawdowns
Volatility
Financials

Correlation

The correlation between CLMB and LRCX is 0.15, 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.


Performance

CLMB vs. LRCX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Climb Global Solutions (CLMB) and Lam Research Corporation (LRCX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

2,500.00%3,000.00%3,500.00%4,000.00%4,500.00%December2025FebruaryMarchAprilMay
2,576.26%
3,738.24%
CLMB
LRCX

Key characteristics

Sharpe Ratio

CLMB:

1.97

LRCX:

-0.31

Sortino Ratio

CLMB:

2.75

LRCX:

-0.14

Omega Ratio

CLMB:

1.32

LRCX:

0.98

Calmar Ratio

CLMB:

2.93

LRCX:

-0.36

Martin Ratio

CLMB:

8.27

LRCX:

-0.59

Ulcer Index

CLMB:

10.90%

LRCX:

28.38%

Daily Std Dev

CLMB:

49.26%

LRCX:

51.74%

Max Drawdown

CLMB:

-89.12%

LRCX:

-87.91%

Current Drawdown

CLMB:

-23.17%

LRCX:

-32.54%

Fundamentals

Market Cap

CLMB:

$469.03M

LRCX:

$95.32B

EPS

CLMB:

$4.27

LRCX:

$3.59

PE Ratio

CLMB:

23.87

LRCX:

20.76

PEG Ratio

CLMB:

1.56

LRCX:

1.10

PS Ratio

CLMB:

0.91

LRCX:

5.56

PB Ratio

CLMB:

4.88

LRCX:

10.02

Total Revenue (TTM)

CLMB:

$511.23M

LRCX:

$17.14B

Gross Profit (TTM)

CLMB:

$96.59M

LRCX:

$8.24B

EBITDA (TTM)

CLMB:

$35.29M

LRCX:

$5.83B

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CLMB achieves a -15.21% return, which is significantly lower than LRCX's 4.65% return. Over the past 10 years, CLMB has underperformed LRCX with an annualized return of 23.55%, while LRCX has yielded a comparatively higher 27.59% annualized return.


CLMB

YTD

-15.21%

1M

0.26%

6M

-9.73%

1Y

95.83%

5Y*

46.61%

10Y*

23.55%

LRCX

YTD

4.65%

1M

5.98%

6M

-3.04%

1Y

-16.05%

5Y*

24.74%

10Y*

27.59%

*Annualized

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Risk-Adjusted Performance

CLMB vs. LRCX — Risk-Adjusted Performance Rank

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

CLMB
The Risk-Adjusted Performance Rank of CLMB is 9393
Overall Rank
The Sharpe Ratio Rank of CLMB is 9696
Sharpe Ratio Rank
The Sortino Ratio Rank of CLMB is 9393
Sortino Ratio Rank
The Omega Ratio Rank of CLMB is 8989
Omega Ratio Rank
The Calmar Ratio Rank of CLMB is 9696
Calmar Ratio Rank
The Martin Ratio Rank of CLMB is 9393
Martin Ratio Rank

LRCX
The Risk-Adjusted Performance Rank of LRCX is 3434
Overall Rank
The Sharpe Ratio Rank of LRCX is 3535
Sharpe Ratio Rank
The Sortino Ratio Rank of LRCX is 3333
Sortino Ratio Rank
The Omega Ratio Rank of LRCX is 3333
Omega Ratio Rank
The Calmar Ratio Rank of LRCX is 3030
Calmar Ratio Rank
The Martin Ratio Rank of LRCX is 3939
Martin Ratio Rank
The risk-adjusted ranks indicate the investment's position relative to the market. A rank closer to 100 signifies top-performing investments, while a rank closer to 0 might suggest underperformance, based on the selected ratio. The values are calculated based on the past 12 months of returns.

CLMB vs. LRCX - Risk-Adjusted Performance 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.


The current CLMB Sharpe Ratio is 1.97, which is higher than the LRCX Sharpe Ratio of -0.31. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CLMB and LRCX, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.


Rolling 12-month Sharpe Ratio-1.000.001.002.003.004.00December2025FebruaryMarchAprilMay
1.97
-0.31
CLMB
LRCX

Dividends

CLMB vs. LRCX - Dividend Comparison

CLMB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.63%, less than LRCX's 1.18% yield.


TTM20242023202220212020201920182017201620152014
CLMB
Climb Global Solutions
0.63%0.54%1.24%2.16%1.94%3.56%4.20%6.80%4.07%3.64%3.71%3.95%
LRCX
Lam Research Corporation
1.18%1.19%0.95%1.53%0.78%1.04%1.54%2.79%1.01%1.28%1.36%0.68%

Drawdowns

CLMB vs. LRCX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CLMB drawdown since its inception was -89.12%, roughly equal to the maximum LRCX drawdown of -87.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CLMB and LRCX. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.


-50.00%-40.00%-30.00%-20.00%-10.00%0.00%December2025FebruaryMarchAprilMay
-23.17%
-32.54%
CLMB
LRCX

Volatility

CLMB vs. LRCX - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Climb Global Solutions (CLMB) is 9.58%, while Lam Research Corporation (LRCX) has a volatility of 13.46%. 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.


10.00%15.00%20.00%25.00%December2025FebruaryMarchAprilMay
9.58%
13.46%
CLMB
LRCX

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.


Quarterly
Annual

Total Revenue: Total amount of money received from sales and other business activities


0.001.00B2.00B3.00B4.00B5.00B20212022202320242025
138.04M
4.72B
(CLMB) Total Revenue
(LRCX) Total Revenue
Values in USD except per share items

CLMB vs. LRCX - Profitability Comparison

The chart below illustrates the profitability comparison between Climb Global Solutions and Lam Research Corporation over time, highlighting three key metrics: Gross Profit Margin, Operating Margin, and Net Profit Margin.

Gross Margin
Operating Margin
Net Margin
Quarterly
Annual

10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%20212022202320242025
17.0%
49.0%
(CLMB) Gross Margin
(LRCX) Gross Margin
CLMB - Gross Margin

Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on May 2025, Climb Global Solutions reported a gross profit of 23.40M and revenue of 138.04M. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 17.0%.

LRCX - Gross Margin

Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on May 2025, Lam Research Corporation reported a gross profit of 2.31B and revenue of 4.72B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 49.0%.

CLMB - Operating Margin

Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on May 2025, Climb Global Solutions reported an operating income of 4.78M and revenue of 138.04M, resulting in an operating margin of 3.5%.

LRCX - Operating Margin

Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on May 2025, Lam Research Corporation reported an operating income of 1.56B and revenue of 4.72B, resulting in an operating margin of 33.1%.

CLMB - Net Margin

Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on May 2025, Climb Global Solutions reported a net income of 3.68M and revenue of 138.04M, resulting in a net margin of 2.7%.

LRCX - Net Margin

Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on May 2025, Lam Research Corporation reported a net income of 1.33B and revenue of 4.72B, resulting in a net margin of 28.2%.