CLS.TO vs. EAT
CLS.TO (Celestica Inc.) and EAT (Brinker International, Inc.) are both stocks. CLS.TO operates in Electronic Components (Technology), while EAT operates in Restaurants (Consumer Cyclical). Over the past 10 years, CLS.TO returned 44.95%/yr vs 15.67%/yr for EAT. At a 0.23 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.
Performance
CLS.TO vs. EAT - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
CLS.TO is traded in CAD, while EAT is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the EAT values have been converted to CAD using the latest available exchange rates.
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CLS.TO achieves a 35.52% return, which is significantly higher than EAT's 13.26% return. Over the past 10 years, CLS.TO has outperformed EAT with an annualized return of 44.95%, while EAT has yielded a comparatively lower 15.67% annualized return.
CLS.TO
- 1D
- 2.22%
- 1M
- 11.19%
- YTD
- 35.52%
- 6M
- 30.45%
- 1Y
- 223.16%
- 3Y*
- 212.27%
- 5Y*
- 122.50%
- 10Y*
- 44.95%
EAT
- 1D
- 0.56%
- 1M
- 18.78%
- YTD
- 13.26%
- 6M
- 11.87%
- 1Y
- -6.21%
- 3Y*
- 64.55%
- 5Y*
- 24.74%
- 10Y*
- 15.67%
CLS.TO vs. EAT - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CLS.TO Celestica Inc. | 35.52% | 206.05% | 241.82% | 154.33% | 8.23% | 37.29% | -4.64% | -9.95% | -9.26% | -17.16% |
EAT Brinker International, Inc. | 13.26% | 3.54% | 232.31% | 32.10% | -7.26% | -35.35% | 32.93% | -5.00% | 27.13% | -23.96% |
Correlation
The correlation between CLS.TO and EAT is 0.15, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.15 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.22 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.27 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.24 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 12, 2006 | 0.23 |
The correlation between CLS.TO and EAT shifts across timeframes, from 0.15 (1 year) to 0.27 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Fundamentals
CLS.TO:
CA$63.66B
EAT:
$7.09B
CLS.TO:
$8.28
EAT:
$10.14
CLS.TO:
47.51
EAT:
15.71
CLS.TO:
0.64
EAT:
0.36
CLS.TO:
3.30
EAT:
1.27
CLS.TO:
21.70
EAT:
17.46
CLS.TO:
$13.81B
EAT:
$5.73B
CLS.TO:
$1.60B
EAT:
$3.45B
CLS.TO:
$1.36B
EAT:
$807.20M
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
CLS.TO vs. EAT — Risk / Return Rank
CLS.TO
EAT
CLS.TO vs. EAT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Celestica Inc. (CLS.TO) and Brinker International, Inc. (EAT). 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.
| CLS.TO | EAT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +3.10 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +2.78 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.39 | 1.01 | +0.38 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 6.64 | -0.18 | +6.82 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 16.31 | -0.37 | +16.68 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CLS.TO vs. EAT - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CLS.TO drawdown since its inception was -79.32%, smaller than the maximum EAT drawdown of -87.40%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CLS.TO and EAT.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CLS.TO | EAT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -79.32% | -87.40% | +8.08% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -31.71% | -42.38% | +10.67% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -54.25% | -48.18% | -6.07% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -54.25% | -64.33% | +10.08% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -79.32% | -83.85% | +4.53% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -15.72% | -20.03% | +4.31% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -28.84% | -26.59% | -2.25% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 12.89% | 20.69% | -7.80% |
Volatility
CLS.TO vs. EAT - Volatility Comparison
Celestica Inc. (CLS.TO) has a higher volatility of 27.86% compared to Brinker International, Inc. (EAT) at 15.07%. This indicates that CLS.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EAT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CLS.TO | EAT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 27.86% | 15.07% | +12.79% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 55.27% | 36.79% | +18.48% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 71.69% | 47.45% | +24.24% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 56.60% | 49.51% | +7.09% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 48.83% | 55.55% | -6.72% |
Dividends
CLS.TO vs. EAT - Dividend Comparison
Neither CLS.TO nor EAT has paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CLS.TO Celestica Inc. | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
EAT Brinker International, Inc. | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.67% | 3.62% | 3.46% | 3.71% | 2.67% | 2.50% |
Financials
CLS.TO vs. EAT - Financials Comparison
This section allows you to compare key financial metrics between Celestica Inc. and Brinker International, Inc.. 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
CLS.TO vs. EAT - Profitability Comparison
CLS.TO - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Celestica Inc. reported a gross profit of 437.20M and revenue of 4.05B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 10.8%.
EAT - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Brinker International, Inc. reported a gross profit of 1.10B and revenue of 1.47B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 74.6%.
CLS.TO - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Celestica Inc. reported an operating income of 267.70M and revenue of 4.05B, resulting in an operating margin of 6.6%.
EAT - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Brinker International, Inc. reported an operating income of 166.60M and revenue of 1.47B, resulting in an operating margin of 11.3%.
CLS.TO - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Celestica Inc. reported a net income of 212.30M and revenue of 4.05B, resulting in a net margin of 5.3%.
EAT - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Brinker International, Inc. reported a net income of 127.90M and revenue of 1.47B, resulting in a net margin of 8.7%.
Frequently Asked Questions
CLS.TO and EAT have a correlation of 0.15, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
Find the right allocation for CLS.TO and EAT
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