CWT vs. CL
CWT (California Water Service Group) and CL (Colgate-Palmolive Company) are both stocks. CWT operates in Utilities - Regulated Water (Utilities), while CL operates in Household & Personal Products (Consumer Defensive). Over the past 10 years, CWT returned 6.29%/yr vs 4.44%/yr for CL. Their 0.24 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship.
Performance
CWT vs. CL - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with CWT having a 17.43% return and CL slightly higher at 17.64%. Over the past 10 years, CWT has outperformed CL with an annualized return of 6.29%, while CL has yielded a comparatively lower 4.44% 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%
CL
- 1D
- -0.33%
- 1M
- -1.01%
- 6M
- 2.33%
- YTD
- 17.64%
- 1Y
- 11.61%
- 3Y*
- 8.52%
- 5Y*
- 5.29%
- 10Y*
- 4.44%
- ALL TIME*
- 10.28%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $438.38M | $416.63M | $459.32M | |
| $24.21M | $23.35M | $24.82M |
CWT vs. CL - 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% |
CL Colgate-Palmolive Company | 17.64% | -10.98% | 16.57% | 3.78% | -5.44% | 2.08% | 27.17% | 18.60% | -19.19% | 17.88% |
Correlation
The correlation between CWT and CL is 0.30, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.30 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.34 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.39 |
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions. | 0.36 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 26, 1990 | 0.24 |
The correlation between CWT and CL shifts across timeframes, from 0.24 (all time) to 0.39 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Fundamentals
CWT:
$3.00B
CL:
$73.06B
CWT:
$2.23
CL:
$2.53
CWT:
22.50
CL:
36.15
CWT:
0.54
CL:
9.34
CWT:
2.84
CL:
3.50
CWT:
1.66
CL:
311.74
CWT:
$1.05B
CL:
$21.05B
CWT:
$196.22M
CL:
$12.72B
CWT:
$346.36M
CL:
$3.68B
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. CL — Risk / Return Rank
CWT
CL
CWT vs. CL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for California Water Service Group (CWT) and Colgate-Palmolive Company (CL). 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 | CL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.02 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.01 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.11 | 1.10 | +0.01 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.92 | 0.69 | +0.23 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 1.74 | 1.37 | +0.37 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CWT vs. CL - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CWT drawdown since its inception was -38.21%, smaller than the maximum CL drawdown of -58.91%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CWT and CL.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CWT | CL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -38.21% | -58.91% | +20.70% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -14.59% | -16.97% | +2.38% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -24.13% | -29.05% | +4.92% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -38.21% | -29.05% | -9.16% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -38.21% | -29.05% | -9.16% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -22.88% | -12.03% | -10.85% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -11.75% | -11.24% | -0.51% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 7.70% | 8.47% | -0.77% |
Volatility
CWT vs. CL - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for California Water Service Group (CWT) is 6.85%, while Colgate-Palmolive Company (CL) has a volatility of 7.62%. This indicates that CWT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CWT | CL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.85% | 7.62% | -0.77% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 19.17% | 17.78% | +1.39% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 24.72% | 22.53% | +2.19% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 24.33% | 18.97% | +5.36% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 27.72% | 19.87% | +7.85% |
Dividends
CWT vs. CL - Dividend Comparison
CWT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.53%, more than CL's 2.30% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CL Colgate-Palmolive Company | 2.30% | 2.61% | 2.18% | 2.40% | 2.36% | 2.10% | 2.05% | 2.48% | 2.79% | 2.11% | 2.37% | 2.25% |
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. CL - Financials Comparison
This section allows you to compare key financial metrics between California Water Service Group and Colgate-Palmolive Company. 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. CL - 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%.
CL - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Aug 2026, Colgate-Palmolive Company reported a gross profit of 3.30B and revenue of 5.36B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 61.5%.
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%.
CL - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Aug 2026, Colgate-Palmolive Company reported an operating income of 1.02B and revenue of 5.36B, resulting in an operating margin of 19.0%.
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%.
CL - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Aug 2026, Colgate-Palmolive Company reported a net income of 693.00M and revenue of 5.36B, resulting in a net margin of 12.9%.
Frequently Asked Questions
CWT and CL have a correlation of 0.30, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
CL has higher volatility (7.62%) compared to CWT (6.85%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CWT dropped -38.21% vs CL's -58.91%.
CWT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.54 vs 0.52), 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 CL
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