CLS vs. FBTC

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

CLS (Celestica Inc.) is a stock, while FBTC (Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund) is Cryptocurrency fund tracking the Fidelity Bitcoin Reference Rate. Over the past year, CLS returned 157.59% vs -39.80% for FBTC. At a 0.27 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

CLS vs. FBTC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Celestica Inc. (CLS) and Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund (FBTC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CLS achieves a 18.81% return, which is significantly higher than FBTC's -28.83% return.

CLS

• 1D: -6.80%
• 1M: -4.40%
• YTD: 18.81%
• 6M: 15.73%
• 1Y: 157.59%
• 3Y*: 191.08%
• 5Y*: 113.59%
• 10Y*: 43.13%

FBTC

• 1D: -3.16%
• 1M: -17.78%
• YTD: -28.83%
• 6M: -28.94%
• 1Y: -39.80%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CLS vs. FBTC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
CLS Celestica Inc.	18.81%	220.27%	212.67%
FBTC Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund	-28.83%	-6.56%	94.28%

Correlation

The correlation between CLS and FBTC is 0.29, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.29
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 11, 2024	0.27

Return for Risk

CLS vs. FBTC — Risk / Return Rank

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

CLS

CLS Risk / Return Rank: 88
CLS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
CLS Sortino Ratio Rank: 83
CLS Omega Ratio Rank: 83
CLS Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
CLS Martin Ratio Rank: 91

FBTC

FBTC Risk / Return Rank: 2
FBTC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2
FBTC Sortino Ratio Rank: 2
FBTC Omega Ratio Rank: 2
FBTC Calmar Ratio Rank: 2
FBTC Martin Ratio Rank: 2

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.

CLS vs. FBTC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Celestica Inc. (CLS) and Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund (FBTC). 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	FBTC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.17	-0.90	+3.07
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.46	-1.26	+3.72
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	0.86	+0.46
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.42	-0.77	+6.19
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.78	-1.30	+14.08

CLS vs. FBTC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CLS Sharpe Ratio is 2.17, which is higher than the FBTC Sharpe Ratio of -0.90. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CLS and FBTC, 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

CLS vs. FBTC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CLS drawdown since its inception was -96.93%, which is greater than FBTC's maximum drawdown of -52.07%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CLS and FBTC.

Drawdown Indicators

	CLS	FBTC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-96.93%	-52.07%	-44.86%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-29.24%	-52.07%	+22.83%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-53.96%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-53.96%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-80.60%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-25.66%	-50.43%	+24.77%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-73.27%	-16.77%	-56.50%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	12.38%	30.54%	-18.16%

Volatility

CLS vs. FBTC - Volatility Comparison

Celestica Inc. (CLS) has a higher volatility of 27.86% compared to Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund (FBTC) at 13.04%. This indicates that CLS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FBTC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CLS	FBTC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	27.86%	13.04%	+14.82%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	54.05%	34.56%	+19.49%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	73.04%	44.18%	+28.86%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	57.84%	50.08%	+7.76%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	50.05%	50.08%	-0.03%

Dividends

CLS vs. FBTC - Dividend Comparison

Neither CLS nor FBTC has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CLS and FBTC in my portfolio?

CLS and FBTC have a correlation of 0.29, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CLS or FBTC?

CLS has higher volatility (27.86%) compared to FBTC (13.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CLS dropped -96.93% vs FBTC's -52.07%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CLS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.17 vs -0.90), 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.