CWT vs. GRC
CWT (California Water Service Group) and GRC (The Gorman-Rupp Company) are both stocks. CWT operates in Utilities - Regulated Water (Utilities), while GRC operates in Specialty Industrial Machinery (Industrials). Over the past 10 years, CWT returned 6.11%/yr vs 13.23%/yr for GRC. At a 0.30 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.
Performance
CWT vs. GRC - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CWT achieves a 16.49% return, which is significantly lower than GRC's 67.38% return. Over the past 10 years, CWT has underperformed GRC with an annualized return of 6.11%, while GRC has yielded a comparatively higher 13.23% annualized return.
CWT
- 1D
- 1.22%
- 1M
- 9.61%
- 6M
- 15.74%
- YTD
- 16.49%
- 1Y
- 11.40%
- 3Y*
- 2.28%
- 5Y*
- -0.91%
- 10Y*
- 6.11%
GRC
- 1D
- 0.13%
- 1M
- -4.01%
- 6M
- 57.77%
- YTD
- 67.38%
- 1Y
- 114.11%
- 3Y*
- 44.21%
- 5Y*
- 20.16%
- 10Y*
- 13.23%
CWT vs. GRC - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CWT California Water Service Group | 16.49% | -1.81% | -10.64% | -12.83% | -14.13% | 35.05% | 6.68% | 9.85% | 7.06% | 36.39% |
GRC The Gorman-Rupp Company | 67.38% | 28.24% | 8.87% | 42.15% | -41.17% | 39.71% | -11.90% | 17.64% | 11.75% | 2.49% |
Correlation
The correlation between CWT and GRC is 0.05, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.05 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.20 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.27 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.31 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 17, 1992 | 0.30 |
Over the past year, the correlation between CWT and GRC has dropped to 0.05 - well below their long-term average of 0.30, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.
Fundamentals
CWT:
$2.98B
GRC:
$2.10B
CWT:
$1.99
GRC:
$2.23
CWT:
24.96
GRC:
35.61
CWT:
0.60
GRC:
0.73
CWT:
2.94
GRC:
3.01
CWT:
1.66
GRC:
2.43
CWT:
$1.01B
GRC:
$695.03M
CWT:
$366.63M
GRC:
$210.01M
CWT:
$329.51M
GRC:
$118.94M
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. GRC — Risk / Return Rank
CWT
GRC
CWT vs. GRC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for California Water Service Group (CWT) and The Gorman-Rupp Company (GRC). 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 | GRC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -2.67 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -3.33 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.09 | 1.49 | -0.39 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.72 | 7.50 | -6.78 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 1.36 | 22.51 | -21.15 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CWT vs. GRC - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CWT drawdown since its inception was -38.21%, smaller than the maximum GRC drawdown of -67.23%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CWT and GRC.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CWT | GRC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -38.21% | -67.23% | +29.02% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -14.59% | -14.90% | +0.31% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -24.13% | -26.87% | +2.74% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -38.21% | -49.26% | +11.05% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -38.21% | -49.26% | +11.05% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -23.50% | -13.34% | -10.16% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -11.73% | -17.60% | +5.87% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 7.72% | 4.97% | +2.75% |
Volatility
CWT vs. GRC - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for California Water Service Group (CWT) is 6.02%, while The Gorman-Rupp Company (GRC) has a volatility of 13.36%. This indicates that CWT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than GRC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CWT | GRC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.02% | 13.36% | -7.34% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 19.12% | 30.14% | -11.02% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 24.38% | 36.09% | -11.71% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 24.29% | 31.08% | -6.79% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 27.69% | 34.08% | -6.39% |
Dividends
CWT vs. GRC - Dividend Comparison
CWT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.55%, more than GRC's 0.95% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CWT California Water Service Group | 2.55% | 2.86% | 2.47% | 2.01% | 1.65% | 1.28% | 1.57% | 1.53% | 1.57% | 1.59% | 2.04% | 2.88% |
GRC The Gorman-Rupp Company | 0.95% | 1.56% | 1.91% | 1.98% | 2.67% | 1.43% | 1.82% | 1.47% | 7.74% | 1.51% | 1.39% | 1.52% |
Financials
CWT vs. GRC - Financials Comparison
This section allows you to compare key financial metrics between California Water Service Group and The Gorman-Rupp 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. GRC - Profitability Comparison
CWT - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jul 2026, California Water Service Group reported a gross profit of 0.00 and revenue of 214.57M. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 0.0%.
GRC - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jul 2026, The Gorman-Rupp Company reported a gross profit of 57.36M and revenue of 176.59M. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 32.5%.
CWT - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jul 2026, California Water Service Group reported an operating income of 18.16M and revenue of 214.57M, resulting in an operating margin of 8.5%.
GRC - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jul 2026, The Gorman-Rupp Company reported an operating income of 27.48M and revenue of 176.59M, resulting in an operating margin of 15.6%.
CWT - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jul 2026, California Water Service Group reported a net income of 4.04M and revenue of 214.57M, resulting in a net margin of 1.9%.
GRC - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jul 2026, The Gorman-Rupp Company reported a net income of 17.84M and revenue of 176.59M, resulting in a net margin of 10.1%.
Frequently Asked Questions
CWT and GRC have a correlation of 0.05, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
GRC has higher volatility (13.36%) compared to CWT (6.02%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CWT dropped -38.21% vs GRC's -67.23%.
GRC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.10 vs 0.43), 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 GRC
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