FLS vs. CHDN
FLS (Flowserve Corporation) and CHDN (Churchill Downs Incorporated) are both stocks. FLS operates in Specialty Industrial Machinery (Industrials), while CHDN operates in Gambling (Consumer Cyclical). Over the past 10 years, FLS returned 8.09%/yr vs 16.06%/yr for CHDN. At a 0.28 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.
Performance
FLS vs. CHDN - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, FLS achieves a 17.94% return, which is significantly higher than CHDN's -24.11% return. Over the past 10 years, FLS has underperformed CHDN with an annualized return of 8.09%, while CHDN has yielded a comparatively higher 16.06% annualized return.
FLS
- 1D
- -0.15%
- 1M
- 17.20%
- YTD
- 17.94%
- 6M
- 14.57%
- 1Y
- 79.84%
- 3Y*
- 33.68%
- 5Y*
- 17.33%
- 10Y*
- 8.09%
CHDN
- 1D
- -2.18%
- 1M
- 1.45%
- YTD
- -24.11%
- 6M
- -24.66%
- 1Y
- -11.46%
- 3Y*
- -12.60%
- 5Y*
- -2.69%
- 10Y*
- 16.06%
FLS vs. CHDN - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FLS Flowserve Corporation | 17.94% | 22.45% | 41.88% | 37.32% | 3.08% | -15.08% | -23.85% | 33.66% | -8.20% | -11.19% |
CHDN Churchill Downs Incorporated | -24.11% | -14.47% | -0.74% | 28.06% | -11.95% | 24.05% | 42.47% | 69.49% | 5.47% | 55.74% |
Correlation
The correlation between FLS and CHDN is 0.16, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.16 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.31 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.36 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.40 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 29, 1993 | 0.28 |
The correlation between FLS and CHDN shifts across timeframes, from 0.16 (1 year) to 0.40 (10 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Fundamentals
FLS:
$10.49B
CHDN:
$6.04B
FLS:
$2.72
CHDN:
$5.44
FLS:
29.95
CHDN:
15.88
FLS:
0.98
CHDN:
0.88
FLS:
2.28
CHDN:
2.09
FLS:
4.74
CHDN:
5.52
FLS:
$4.65B
CHDN:
$2.95B
FLS:
$1.62B
CHDN:
$793.10M
FLS:
$654.46M
CHDN:
$983.60M
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
FLS vs. CHDN — Risk / Return Rank
FLS
CHDN
FLS vs. CHDN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Flowserve Corporation (FLS) and Churchill Downs Incorporated (CHDN). 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.
| FLS | CHDN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +2.01 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +3.09 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.36 | 0.96 | +0.40 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.69 | -0.39 | +3.08 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 7.46 | -0.68 | +8.13 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
FLS vs. CHDN - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum FLS drawdown since its inception was -77.36%, which is greater than CHDN's maximum drawdown of -62.86%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLS and CHDN.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| FLS | CHDN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -77.36% | -62.86% | -14.50% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -29.83% | -29.36% | -0.47% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -38.76% | -43.28% | +4.52% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -41.89% | -43.72% | +1.83% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -64.82% | -62.86% | -1.96% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -11.10% | -41.49% | +30.39% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -26.99% | -17.58% | -9.41% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 10.74% | 17.00% | -6.26% |
Volatility
FLS vs. CHDN - Volatility Comparison
Flowserve Corporation (FLS) has a higher volatility of 11.60% compared to Churchill Downs Incorporated (CHDN) at 10.85%. This indicates that FLS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CHDN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| FLS | CHDN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 11.60% | 10.85% | +0.75% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 31.71% | 25.96% | +5.75% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 48.67% | 32.38% | +16.29% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 36.17% | 32.55% | +3.62% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 37.73% | 37.55% | +0.18% |
Dividends
FLS vs. CHDN - Dividend Comparison
FLS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.04%, more than CHDN's 0.51% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CHDN Churchill Downs Incorporated | 0.51% | 0.38% | 0.31% | 0.28% | 0.34% | 0.28% | 0.32% | 0.42% | 0.67% | 0.65% | 0.88% | 0.81% |
FLS Flowserve Corporation | 1.04% | 1.21% | 1.46% | 1.94% | 2.61% | 2.61% | 2.17% | 1.91% | 2.00% | 1.35% | 1.58% | 1.71% |
Financials
FLS vs. CHDN - Financials Comparison
This section allows you to compare key financial metrics between Flowserve Corporation and Churchill Downs Incorporated. 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
FLS vs. CHDN - Profitability Comparison
FLS - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Flowserve Corporation reported a gross profit of 379.84M and revenue of 1.07B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 35.6%.
CHDN - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Churchill Downs Incorporated reported a gross profit of 0.00 and revenue of 663.00M. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 0.0%.
FLS - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Flowserve Corporation reported an operating income of 119.43M and revenue of 1.07B, resulting in an operating margin of 11.2%.
CHDN - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Churchill Downs Incorporated reported an operating income of 143.00M and revenue of 663.00M, resulting in an operating margin of 21.6%.
FLS - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Flowserve Corporation reported a net income of 81.68M and revenue of 1.07B, resulting in a net margin of 7.7%.
CHDN - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Churchill Downs Incorporated reported a net income of 83.00M and revenue of 663.00M, resulting in a net margin of 12.5%.
Frequently Asked Questions
FLS and CHDN have a correlation of 0.16, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
FLS has higher volatility (11.60%) compared to CHDN (10.85%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLS dropped -77.36% vs CHDN's -62.86%.
FLS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.65 vs -0.36), 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 FLS and CHDN
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