EMA vs. CLS.TO

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

EMA (Emera Inc) and CLS.TO (Celestica Inc.) are both stocks. EMA operates in Utilities - Regulated Electric (Utilities), while CLS.TO operates in Electronic Components (Technology). Over the past year, EMA returned 22.07% vs 202.30% for CLS.TO. At a correlation of -0.20, they often move in opposite directions.

Performance

EMA vs. CLS.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Emera Inc (EMA) and Celestica Inc. (CLS.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

EMA is traded in USD, while CLS.TO is traded in CAD. To make them comparable, the CLS.TO values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMA achieves a 9.00% return, which is significantly lower than CLS.TO's 32.76% return.

EMA

• 1D: 0.98%
• 1M: 0.11%
• YTD: 9.00%
• 6M: 12.00%
• 1Y: 22.07%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CLS.TO

• 1D: 1.99%
• 1M: 5.68%
• YTD: 32.76%
• 6M: 28.56%
• 1Y: 202.30%
• 3Y*: 207.61%
• 5Y*: 116.14%
• 10Y*: 43.71%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EMA vs. CLS.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
EMA Emera Inc	9.00%	11.17%
CLS.TO Celestica Inc.	32.69%	147.95%

Correlation

The correlation between EMA and CLS.TO is -0.20, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.20
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 28, 2025	-0.20

Fundamentals

Market Cap EMA : $15.99B CLS.TO : CA$63.66B
EPS EMA : CA$3.55 CLS.TO : $8.28
PE Ratio EMA : 20.68 CLS.TO : 47.51
PEG Ratio EMA : 0.66 CLS.TO : 0.64
PS Ratio EMA : 2.58 CLS.TO : 3.30
PB Ratio EMA : 2.44 CLS.TO : 21.70
Total Revenue (TTM) EMA : CA$8.59B CLS.TO : $13.81B
Gross Profit (TTM) EMA : CA$2.83B CLS.TO : $1.60B
EBITDA (TTM) EMA : CA$2.56B CLS.TO : $1.36B

Return for Risk

EMA vs. CLS.TO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

EMA

EMA Risk / Return Rank: 85
EMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
EMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
EMA Omega Ratio Rank: 79
EMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
EMA Martin Ratio Rank: 88

CLS.TO

CLS.TO Risk / Return Rank: 92
CLS.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
CLS.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
CLS.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 89
CLS.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
CLS.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 94

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

EMA vs. CLS.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Emera Inc (EMA) 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.

	EMA	CLS.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.63	2.83	-1.20
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.34	2.83	-0.49
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.38	-0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.74	6.89	-3.15
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.96	17.06	-7.11

EMA vs. CLS.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMA Sharpe Ratio is 1.63, which is lower than the CLS.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.83. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMA and CLS.TO, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

EMA vs. CLS.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMA drawdown since its inception was -5.93%, smaller than the maximum CLS.TO drawdown of -80.63%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMA and CLS.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMA	CLS.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-5.93%	-80.63%	+74.70%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.93%	-29.56%	+23.63%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-53.42%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-53.42%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-80.63%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.00%	-16.56%	+14.56%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.76%	-26.16%	+24.40%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.22%	11.91%	-9.69%

Volatility

EMA vs. CLS.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Emera Inc (EMA) is 4.92%, while Celestica Inc. (CLS.TO) has a volatility of 28.03%. This indicates that EMA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CLS.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMA	CLS.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.92%	28.03%	-23.11%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.32%	55.40%	-45.08%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.67%	72.00%	-58.33%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.79%	56.84%	-43.05%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.79%	49.39%	-35.60%

Dividends

EMA vs. CLS.TO - Dividend Comparison

EMA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.05%, while CLS.TO has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025
CLS.TO Celestica Inc.	0.00%	0.00%
EMA Emera Inc	4.05%	2.12%

Financials

EMA vs. CLS.TO - Profitability Comparison

The chart below illustrates the profitability comparison between Emera Inc and Celestica Inc. over time, highlighting three key metrics: Gross Profit Margin, Operating Margin, and Net Profit Margin.

EMA - Gross Margin

Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Emera Inc reported a gross profit of 756.95M and revenue of 2.48B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 30.5%.

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%.

EMA - Operating Margin

Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Emera Inc reported an operating income of 626.62M and revenue of 2.48B, resulting in an operating margin of 25.3%.

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%.

EMA - Net Margin

Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Emera Inc reported a net income of 583.50M and revenue of 2.48B, resulting in a net margin of 23.5%.

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

Can I hold both EMA and CLS.TO in my portfolio?

EMA and CLS.TO have a correlation of -0.20, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.