CLS vs. GFF
CLS (Celestica Inc.) and GFF (Griffon Corporation) are both stocks. CLS operates in Electronic Components (Technology), while GFF operates in Tools & Accessories (Industrials). Over the past 10 years, CLS returned 43.16%/yr vs 21.64%/yr for GFF. At a 0.32 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.
Performance
CLS vs. GFF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CLS achieves a 30.75% return, which is significantly higher than GFF's 18.36% return. Over the past 10 years, CLS has outperformed GFF with an annualized return of 43.16%, while GFF has yielded a comparatively lower 21.64% annualized return.
CLS
- 1D
- 3.98%
- 1M
- 2.92%
- YTD
- 30.75%
- 6M
- 13.42%
- 1Y
- 220.14%
- 3Y*
- 209.55%
- 5Y*
- 114.81%
- 10Y*
- 43.16%
GFF
- 1D
- 1.44%
- 1M
- -1.22%
- YTD
- 18.36%
- 6M
- 19.35%
- 1Y
- 24.46%
- 3Y*
- 34.72%
- 5Y*
- 32.40%
- 10Y*
- 21.64%
CLS vs. GFF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CLS Celestica Inc. | 30.75% | 220.27% | 215.23% | 159.80% | 1.26% | 37.92% | -2.42% | -5.70% | -16.32% | -11.56% |
GFF Griffon Corporation | 18.36% | 4.42% | 17.97% | 83.96% | 36.91% | 41.60% | 1.83% | 97.74% | -44.92% | -21.43% |
Correlation
The correlation between CLS and GFF 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 | 0.32 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.38 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.34 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 1, 1998 | 0.32 |
The correlation between CLS and GFF shifts across timeframes, from 0.24 (1 year) to 0.38 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Fundamentals
CLS:
$44.72B
GFF:
$3.96B
CLS:
$8.28
GFF:
$0.76
CLS:
46.65
GFF:
114.80
CLS:
0.63
GFF:
1.49
CLS:
3.24
GFF:
1.70
CLS:
21.31
GFF:
41.96
CLS:
$13.81B
GFF:
$2.35B
CLS:
$1.60B
GFF:
$1.00B
CLS:
$1.32B
GFF:
$245.38M
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 vs. GFF — Risk / Return Rank
CLS
GFF
CLS vs. GFF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Celestica Inc. (CLS) and Griffon Corporation (GFF). 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.
| CLS | GFF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +2.37 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.80 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.39 | 1.15 | +0.24 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 7.58 | 0.88 | +6.70 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 18.88 | 2.31 | +16.57 |
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
| CLS | GFF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.06 | 0.69 | +2.37 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 2.01 | 0.79 | +1.21 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.87 | 0.48 | +0.39 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.27 | 0.04 | +0.23 |
Drawdowns
CLS vs. GFF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CLS drawdown since its inception was -96.93%, roughly equal to the maximum GFF drawdown of -96.84%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CLS and GFF.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CLS | GFF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -96.93% | -96.84% | -0.09% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -29.24% | -27.85% | -1.39% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -53.96% | -27.85% | -26.11% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -53.96% | -39.02% | -14.94% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -80.60% | -61.32% | -19.28% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -18.18% | -8.09% | -10.09% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -73.36% | -55.49% | -17.87% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 11.72% | 10.63% | +1.09% |
Volatility
CLS vs. GFF - Volatility Comparison
Celestica Inc. (CLS) has a higher volatility of 26.60% compared to Griffon Corporation (GFF) at 11.15%. This indicates that CLS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GFF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CLS | GFF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 26.60% | 11.15% | +15.45% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 55.08% | 24.79% | +30.29% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 72.52% | 35.45% | +37.07% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 57.62% | 41.11% | +16.51% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 49.93% | 45.32% | +4.61% |
Dividends
CLS vs. GFF - Dividend Comparison
CLS has not paid dividends to shareholders, while GFF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.97%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CLS 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% |
GFF Griffon Corporation | 0.97% | 1.03% | 0.88% | 4.10% | 6.62% | 1.16% | 1.50% | 1.44% | 12.27% | 1.23% | 0.80% | 0.96% |
Financials
CLS vs. GFF - Financials Comparison
This section allows you to compare key financial metrics between Celestica Inc. and Griffon 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
CLS vs. GFF - Profitability Comparison
CLS - 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%.
GFF - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Griffon Corporation reported a gross profit of 191.99M and revenue of 421.86M. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 45.5%.
CLS - 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 272.10M and revenue of 4.05B, resulting in an operating margin of 6.7%.
GFF - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Griffon Corporation reported an operating income of 87.35M and revenue of 421.86M, resulting in an operating margin of 20.7%.
CLS - 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%.
GFF - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Griffon Corporation reported a net income of 46.94M and revenue of 421.86M, resulting in a net margin of 11.1%.
Frequently Asked Questions
CLS and GFF 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.
CLS has higher volatility (26.60%) compared to GFF (11.15%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CLS dropped -96.93% vs GFF's -96.84%.
CLS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.06 vs 0.69), 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 CLS and GFF
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