CWT vs. GWW
CWT (California Water Service Group) and GWW (W.W. Grainger, Inc.) are both stocks. CWT operates in Utilities - Regulated Water (Utilities), while GWW operates in Industrial Distribution (Industrials). Over the past 10 years, CWT returned 6.29%/yr vs 22.21%/yr for GWW. Their 0.24 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship.
Performance
CWT vs. GWW - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CWT achieves a 17.43% return, which is significantly lower than GWW's 37.52% return. Over the past 10 years, CWT has underperformed GWW with an annualized return of 6.29%, while GWW has yielded a comparatively higher 22.21% 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%
GWW
- 1D
- 1.97%
- 1M
- 3.29%
- 6M
- 28.49%
- YTD
- 37.52%
- 1Y
- 34.12%
- 3Y*
- 25.05%
- 5Y*
- 26.76%
- 10Y*
- 22.21%
- ALL TIME*
- 15.18%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $24.21M | $23.35M | $24.82M | |
| $387.12M | $359.88M | $405.44M |
CWT vs. GWW - 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% |
GWW W.W. Grainger, Inc. | 37.52% | -3.41% | 28.21% | 50.53% | 8.75% | 28.80% | 22.85% | 22.25% | 21.69% | 4.35% |
Correlation
The correlation between CWT and GWW is 0.15, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.15 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.21 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.28 |
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions. | 0.25 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 26, 1990 | 0.24 |
The correlation between CWT and GWW shifts across timeframes, from 0.15 (1 year) to 0.28 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Fundamentals
CWT:
$3.00B
GWW:
$65.26B
CWT:
$2.23
GWW:
$37.36
CWT:
22.50
GWW:
37.00
CWT:
0.54
GWW:
2.14
CWT:
2.84
GWW:
3.59
CWT:
1.66
GWW:
16.67
CWT:
$1.05B
GWW:
$18.38B
CWT:
$196.22M
GWW:
$7.20B
CWT:
$346.36M
GWW:
$2.82B
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. GWW — Risk / Return Rank
CWT
GWW
CWT vs. GWW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for California Water Service Group (CWT) and W.W. Grainger, Inc. (GWW). 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 | GWW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.80 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.97 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.11 | 1.27 | -0.15 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.92 | 2.57 | -1.65 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 1.74 | 6.73 | -4.99 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CWT vs. GWW - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CWT drawdown since its inception was -38.21%, smaller than the maximum GWW drawdown of -56.73%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CWT and GWW.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CWT | GWW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -38.21% | -56.73% | +18.52% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -14.59% | -13.35% | -1.24% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -24.13% | -24.50% | +0.37% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -38.21% | -24.50% | -13.71% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -38.21% | -41.60% | +3.39% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -22.88% | -1.41% | -21.47% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -11.75% | -10.98% | -0.77% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 7.70% | 5.68% | +2.02% |
Volatility
CWT vs. GWW - Volatility Comparison
California Water Service Group (CWT) has a higher volatility of 6.85% compared to W.W. Grainger, Inc. (GWW) at 6.07%. This indicates that CWT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GWW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CWT | GWW | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.85% | 6.07% | +0.78% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 19.17% | 18.19% | +0.98% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 24.72% | 25.43% | -0.71% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 24.33% | 24.72% | -0.39% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 27.72% | 28.53% | -0.81% |
Dividends
CWT vs. GWW - Dividend Comparison
CWT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.53%, more than GWW's 0.67% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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% |
GWW W.W. Grainger, Inc. | 0.67% | 0.88% | 0.76% | 0.88% | 1.22% | 1.23% | 1.45% | 1.68% | 1.90% | 2.14% | 2.08% | 2.27% |
Financials
CWT vs. GWW - Financials Comparison
This section allows you to compare key financial metrics between California Water Service Group and W.W. Grainger, Inc.. 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. GWW - 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%.
GWW - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Aug 2026, W.W. Grainger, Inc. reported a gross profit of 1.90B and revenue of 4.74B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 40.0%.
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%.
GWW - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Aug 2026, W.W. Grainger, Inc. reported an operating income of 793.00M and revenue of 4.74B, resulting in an operating margin of 16.7%.
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%.
GWW - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Aug 2026, W.W. Grainger, Inc. reported a net income of 555.00M and revenue of 4.74B, resulting in a net margin of 11.7%.
Frequently Asked Questions
CWT and GWW have a correlation of 0.15, 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 GWW (6.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CWT dropped -38.21% vs GWW's -56.73%.
GWW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.35 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 GWW
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