CWT vs. PH
CWT (California Water Service Group) and PH (Parker-Hannifin Corporation) are both stocks. CWT operates in Utilities - Regulated Water (Utilities), while PH operates in Specialty Industrial Machinery (Industrials). Over the past 10 years, CWT returned 5.60%/yr vs 24.75%/yr for PH. At a 0.24 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.
Performance
CWT vs. PH - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CWT achieves a 5.76% return, which is significantly higher than PH's 0.89% return. Over the past 10 years, CWT has underperformed PH with an annualized return of 5.60%, while PH has yielded a comparatively higher 24.75% annualized return.
CWT
- 1D
- -1.51%
- 1M
- 4.63%
- YTD
- 5.76%
- 6M
- 5.10%
- 1Y
- 1.75%
- 3Y*
- -4.79%
- 5Y*
- -2.52%
- 10Y*
- 5.60%
PH
- 1D
- 0.09%
- 1M
- 0.49%
- YTD
- 0.89%
- 6M
- 0.81%
- 1Y
- 32.71%
- 3Y*
- 36.81%
- 5Y*
- 25.26%
- 10Y*
- 24.75%
CWT vs. PH - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CWT California Water Service Group | 5.76% | -1.81% | -10.64% | -12.83% | -14.13% | 35.05% | 6.68% | 9.85% | 7.06% | 36.39% |
PH Parker-Hannifin Corporation | 0.89% | 39.54% | 39.58% | 60.81% | -6.91% | 18.30% | 34.78% | 40.75% | -24.00% | 44.91% |
Correlation
The correlation between CWT and PH is 0.07, 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 | 0.07 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.12 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.20 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.22 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 27, 1990 | 0.24 |
The correlation between CWT and PH shifts across timeframes, from 0.07 (1 year) to 0.24 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Fundamentals
CWT:
$2.70B
PH:
$113.04B
CWT:
$1.99
PH:
$27.11
CWT:
22.65
PH:
32.58
CWT:
0.55
PH:
1.37
CWT:
2.66
PH:
5.40
CWT:
1.51
PH:
7.26
CWT:
$1.01B
PH:
$20.99B
CWT:
$366.63M
PH:
$7.81B
CWT:
$329.51M
PH:
$5.31B
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. PH — Risk / Return Rank
CWT
PH
CWT vs. PH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for California Water Service Group (CWT) and Parker-Hannifin Corporation (PH). 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.
| CWT | PH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.26 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.75 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.03 | 1.24 | -0.21 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.12 | 1.70 | -1.58 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 0.23 | 5.17 | -4.95 |
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
| CWT | PH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.07 | 1.34 | -1.26 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.10 | 0.89 | -0.99 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.20 | 0.78 | -0.58 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.31 | 0.44 | -0.14 |
Drawdowns
CWT vs. PH - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CWT drawdown since its inception was -38.21%, smaller than the maximum PH drawdown of -66.92%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CWT and PH.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CWT | PH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -38.21% | -66.92% | +28.71% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -14.59% | -19.34% | +4.75% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -24.13% | -26.79% | +2.66% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -38.21% | -28.64% | -9.57% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -38.21% | -54.68% | +16.47% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -30.55% | -13.48% | -17.07% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -11.70% | -15.33% | +3.63% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 7.70% | 6.34% | +1.36% |
Volatility
CWT vs. PH - Volatility Comparison
California Water Service Group (CWT) has a higher volatility of 7.12% compared to Parker-Hannifin Corporation (PH) at 5.59%. This indicates that CWT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PH based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CWT | PH | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 7.12% | 5.59% | +1.53% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 19.03% | 18.60% | +0.43% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 24.16% | 24.62% | -0.46% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 24.29% | 28.61% | -4.32% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 27.73% | 31.69% | -3.96% |
Dividends
CWT vs. PH - Dividend Comparison
CWT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.81%, more than PH's 0.84% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CWT California Water Service Group | 2.81% | 2.86% | 2.47% | 2.01% | 1.65% | 1.28% | 1.57% | 1.53% | 1.57% | 1.59% | 2.04% | 2.88% |
PH Parker-Hannifin Corporation | 0.84% | 0.80% | 1.00% | 1.25% | 1.73% | 1.25% | 1.29% | 1.65% | 1.97% | 1.32% | 1.80% | 2.60% |
Financials
CWT vs. PH - Financials Comparison
This section allows you to compare key financial metrics between California Water Service Group and Parker-Hannifin 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. PH - Profitability Comparison
CWT - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 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%.
PH - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Parker-Hannifin Corporation reported a gross profit of 2.02B and revenue of 5.49B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 36.8%.
CWT - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 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%.
PH - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Parker-Hannifin Corporation reported an operating income of 1.13B and revenue of 5.49B, resulting in an operating margin of 20.7%.
CWT - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 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%.
PH - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Parker-Hannifin Corporation reported a net income of 904.00M and revenue of 5.49B, resulting in a net margin of 16.5%.
Frequently Asked Questions
CWT and PH have a correlation of 0.07, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
CWT has higher volatility (7.12%) compared to PH (5.59%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CWT dropped -38.21% vs PH's -66.92%.
PH currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.34 vs 0.07), 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 PH
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