EFR.TO vs. CLS.TO
EFR.TO (Energy Fuels Inc.) and CLS.TO (Celestica Inc.) are both stocks. EFR.TO operates in Uranium (Energy), while CLS.TO operates in Electronic Components (Technology). Over the past 10 years, EFR.TO returned 21.00%/yr vs 44.95%/yr for CLS.TO. At a 0.18 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.
Performance
EFR.TO vs. CLS.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, EFR.TO achieves a 5.89% return, which is significantly lower than CLS.TO's 35.52% return. Over the past 10 years, EFR.TO has underperformed CLS.TO with an annualized return of 21.00%, while CLS.TO has yielded a comparatively higher 44.95% annualized return.
EFR.TO
- 1D
- -0.14%
- 1M
- -17.03%
- YTD
- 5.89%
- 6M
- 4.83%
- 1Y
- 175.16%
- 3Y*
- 34.35%
- 5Y*
- 19.77%
- 10Y*
- 21.00%
CLS.TO
- 1D
- 2.22%
- 1M
- 11.19%
- YTD
- 35.52%
- 6M
- 30.45%
- 1Y
- 223.16%
- 3Y*
- 212.27%
- 5Y*
- 122.50%
- 10Y*
- 44.95%
EFR.TO vs. CLS.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EFR.TO Energy Fuels Inc. | 5.89% | 169.01% | -22.21% | 13.37% | -13.25% | 78.89% | 117.74% | -35.92% | 71.24% | 2.26% |
CLS.TO Celestica Inc. | 35.52% | 206.05% | 241.82% | 154.33% | 8.23% | 37.29% | -4.64% | -9.95% | -9.26% | -17.16% |
Correlation
The correlation between EFR.TO and CLS.TO is 0.28, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.28 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.25 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.30 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.23 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 12, 2006 | 0.18 |
The correlation between EFR.TO and CLS.TO shifts across timeframes, from 0.18 (all time) to 0.30 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Fundamentals
EFR.TO:
CA$5.08B
CLS.TO:
CA$63.66B
EFR.TO:
-$0.30
CLS.TO:
$8.28
EFR.TO:
41.45
CLS.TO:
3.30
EFR.TO:
5.03
CLS.TO:
21.70
EFR.TO:
$84.86M
CLS.TO:
$13.81B
EFR.TO:
$25.23M
CLS.TO:
$1.60B
EFR.TO:
-$72.89M
CLS.TO:
$1.36B
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
EFR.TO vs. CLS.TO — Risk / Return Rank
EFR.TO
CLS.TO
EFR.TO vs. CLS.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Energy Fuels Inc. (EFR.TO) and Celestica Inc. (CLS.TO). 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.
| EFR.TO | CLS.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.00 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.34 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.30 | 1.39 | -0.08 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.70 | 6.64 | -2.94 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 7.20 | 16.31 | -9.12 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
EFR.TO vs. CLS.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EFR.TO drawdown since its inception was -99.57%, which is greater than CLS.TO's maximum drawdown of -79.32%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EFR.TO and CLS.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| EFR.TO | CLS.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -99.57% | -79.32% | -20.25% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -51.09% | -31.71% | -19.38% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -59.28% | -54.25% | -5.03% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -64.59% | -54.25% | -10.34% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -78.32% | -79.32% | +1.00% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -92.13% | -15.72% | -76.41% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -91.43% | -28.84% | -62.59% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 26.24% | 12.89% | +13.35% |
Volatility
EFR.TO vs. CLS.TO - Volatility Comparison
Energy Fuels Inc. (EFR.TO) and Celestica Inc. (CLS.TO) have volatilities of 29.13% and 27.86%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| EFR.TO | CLS.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 29.13% | 27.86% | +1.27% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 66.37% | 55.27% | +11.10% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 97.73% | 71.69% | +26.04% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 71.77% | 56.60% | +15.17% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 70.81% | 48.83% | +21.98% |
Dividends
EFR.TO vs. CLS.TO - Dividend Comparison
Neither EFR.TO nor CLS.TO has paid dividends to shareholders.
Financials
EFR.TO vs. CLS.TO - Financials Comparison
This section allows you to compare key financial metrics between Energy Fuels Inc. and Celestica 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
EFR.TO vs. CLS.TO - Profitability Comparison
EFR.TO - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Energy Fuels Inc. reported a gross profit of 14.36M and revenue of 35.84M. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 40.1%.
CLS.TO - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Celestica Inc. reported a gross profit of 437.20M and revenue of 4.05B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 10.8%.
EFR.TO - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Energy Fuels Inc. reported an operating income of -14.55M and revenue of 35.84M, resulting in an operating margin of -40.6%.
CLS.TO - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Celestica Inc. reported an operating income of 267.70M and revenue of 4.05B, resulting in an operating margin of 6.6%.
EFR.TO - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Energy Fuels Inc. reported a net income of -10.84M and revenue of 35.84M, resulting in a net margin of -30.3%.
CLS.TO - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Celestica Inc. reported a net income of 212.30M and revenue of 4.05B, resulting in a net margin of 5.3%.
Frequently Asked Questions
EFR.TO and CLS.TO have a correlation of 0.28, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
Find the right allocation for EFR.TO and CLS.TO
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