CWT vs. BKH
CWT (California Water Service Group) and BKH (Black Hills Corporation) are both stocks. Both are in the Utilities sector — CWT in Utilities - Regulated Water, BKH in Utilities - Diversified. Over the past 10 years, CWT returned 6.29%/yr vs 4.90%/yr for BKH. Their 0.36 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship.
Performance
CWT vs. BKH - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CWT achieves a 17.43% return, which is significantly higher than BKH's 4.55% return. Over the past 10 years, CWT has outperformed BKH with an annualized return of 6.29%, while BKH has yielded a comparatively lower 4.90% annualized return.
CWT
- 1D
- -0.77%
- 1M
- 2.18%
- 6M
- 13.83%
- YTD
- 17.43%
- 1Y
- 13.36%
- 3Y*
- 1.23%
- 5Y*
- -2.29%
- 10Y*
- 6.29%
- ALL TIME*
- 9.58%
BKH
- 1D
- -1.41%
- 1M
- -3.30%
- 6M
- -0.55%
- YTD
- 4.55%
- 1Y
- 28.24%
- 3Y*
- 11.13%
- 5Y*
- 5.20%
- 10Y*
- 4.90%
- ALL TIME*
- 10.89%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $45.52M | $54.01M | $68.22M | |
| $24.21M | $23.35M | $24.82M |
CWT vs. BKH - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CWT California Water Service Group | 17.43% | -1.81% | -10.64% | -12.83% | -14.13% | 35.05% | 6.68% | 9.85% | 7.06% | 36.39% |
BKH Black Hills Corporation | 4.55% | 23.93% | 13.57% | -19.95% | 3.08% | 18.86% | -19.05% | 28.60% | 7.98% | 0.81% |
Correlation
The correlation between CWT and BKH is 0.44, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.44 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.54 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.57 |
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions. | 0.56 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 26, 1990 | 0.36 |
The correlation between CWT and BKH shifts across timeframes, from 0.36 (all time) to 0.57 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Fundamentals
CWT:
$3.00B
BKH:
$5.42B
CWT:
$2.23
BKH:
$2.08
CWT:
22.50
BKH:
34.24
CWT:
0.54
BKH:
20.43
CWT:
2.84
BKH:
2.33
CWT:
$1.05B
BKH:
$2.29B
CWT:
$196.22M
BKH:
$596.90M
CWT:
$346.36M
BKH:
$554.70M
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
CWT vs. BKH — Risk / Return Rank
CWT
BKH
CWT vs. BKH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for California Water Service Group (CWT) and Black Hills Corporation (BKH). 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.
| CWT | BKH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.71 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.95 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.11 | 1.23 | -0.12 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.92 | 2.59 | -1.67 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 1.74 | 7.72 | -5.98 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CWT vs. BKH - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CWT drawdown since its inception was -38.21%, smaller than the maximum BKH drawdown of -65.72%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CWT and BKH.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CWT | BKH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -38.21% | -65.72% | +27.51% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -14.59% | -10.94% | -3.65% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -24.13% | -18.28% | -5.85% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -38.21% | -36.98% | -1.23% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -38.21% | -40.45% | +2.24% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -22.88% | -6.43% | -16.45% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -11.75% | -16.15% | +4.40% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 7.70% | 3.67% | +4.03% |
Volatility
CWT vs. BKH - Volatility Comparison
California Water Service Group (CWT) has a higher volatility of 6.85% compared to Black Hills Corporation (BKH) at 6.15%. This indicates that CWT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BKH based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CWT | BKH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.85% | 6.15% | +0.70% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 19.17% | 18.00% | +1.17% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 24.72% | 22.61% | +2.11% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 24.33% | 22.39% | +1.94% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 27.72% | 25.59% | +2.13% |
Dividends
CWT vs. BKH - Dividend Comparison
CWT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.53%, less than BKH's 3.87% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BKH Black Hills Corporation | 3.87% | 3.90% | 4.44% | 4.63% | 3.43% | 3.25% | 3.53% | 2.61% | 3.07% | 3.01% | 2.74% | 3.49% |
CWT California Water Service Group | 2.53% | 2.86% | 2.47% | 2.01% | 1.65% | 1.28% | 1.57% | 1.53% | 1.57% | 1.59% | 2.04% | 2.88% |
Financials
CWT vs. BKH - Financials Comparison
This section allows you to compare key financial metrics between California Water Service Group and Black Hills 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
CWT vs. BKH - Profitability Comparison
CWT - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Aug 2026, California Water Service Group reported a gross profit of -63.68M and revenue of 308.60M. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was -20.6%.
BKH - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Aug 2026, Black Hills Corporation reported a gross profit of 0.00 and revenue of 780.70M. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 0.0%.
CWT - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Aug 2026, California Water Service Group reported an operating income of 70.83M and revenue of 308.60M, resulting in an operating margin of 23.0%.
BKH - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Aug 2026, Black Hills Corporation reported an operating income of 201.90M and revenue of 780.70M, resulting in an operating margin of 25.9%.
CWT - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Aug 2026, California Water Service Group reported a net income of 56.47M and revenue of 308.60M, resulting in a net margin of 18.3%.
BKH - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Aug 2026, Black Hills Corporation reported a net income of -2.10M and revenue of 780.70M, resulting in a net margin of -0.3%.
Frequently Asked Questions
CWT and BKH have a correlation of 0.44, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
CWT has higher volatility (6.85%) compared to BKH (6.15%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CWT dropped -38.21% vs BKH's -65.72%.
BKH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.26 vs 0.54), 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 CWT and BKH
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