IBIT vs. CLS

Last updated Jun 18, 2026

IBIT (iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF) is Cryptocurrency fund tracking the CME CF Bitcoin Reference Rate - New York Variant, while CLS (Celestica Inc.) is a stock. Over the past year, IBIT returned -38.89% vs 187.77% for CLS. At a 0.27 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

IBIT vs. CLS - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IBIT achieves a -26.77% return, which is significantly lower than CLS's 28.67% return.

IBIT

• 1D: -2.18%
• 1M: -16.47%
• YTD: -26.77%
• 6M: -25.35%
• 1Y: -38.89%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CLS

• 1D: -0.43%
• 1M: 11.00%
• YTD: 28.67%
• 6M: 37.90%
• 1Y: 187.77%
• 3Y*: 198.93%
• 5Y*: 117.75%
• 10Y*: 43.32%

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

IBIT vs. CLS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
IBIT iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF	-26.77%	-6.41%	89.87%
CLS Celestica Inc.	28.67%	220.27%	212.67%

Correlation

The correlation between IBIT and CLS 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 11, 2024	0.27

Return for Risk

IBIT vs. CLS — Risk / Return Rank

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

IBIT

IBIT Risk / Return Rank: 2
IBIT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2
IBIT Sortino Ratio Rank: 2
IBIT Omega Ratio Rank: 3
IBIT Calmar Ratio Rank: 3
IBIT Martin Ratio Rank: 2

CLS

CLS Risk / Return Rank: 91
CLS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
CLS Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
CLS Omega Ratio Rank: 86
CLS Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
CLS 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.

IBIT vs. CLS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF (IBIT) and Celestica Inc. (CLS). 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.

	IBIT	CLS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.88	2.60	-3.49
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.22	2.71	-3.93
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.86	1.36	-0.49
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.75	6.46	-7.21
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.29	15.54	-16.83

IBIT vs. CLS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IBIT Sharpe Ratio is -0.88, which is lower than the CLS Sharpe Ratio of 2.60. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IBIT and CLS, 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

IBIT vs. CLS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IBIT drawdown since its inception was -52.11%, smaller than the maximum CLS drawdown of -96.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IBIT and CLS.

Drawdown Indicators

	IBIT	CLS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-52.11%	-96.93%	+44.82%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-52.11%	-29.24%	-22.87%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-53.96%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-53.96%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-80.60%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-49.00%	-19.48%	-29.52%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-16.69%	-73.29%	+56.60%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	30.09%	12.14%	+17.95%

Volatility

IBIT vs. CLS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF (IBIT) is 12.68%, while Celestica Inc. (CLS) has a volatility of 26.92%. This indicates that IBIT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CLS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IBIT	CLS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	12.68%	26.92%	-14.24%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	34.50%	53.99%	-19.49%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	44.23%	72.72%	-28.49%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	50.26%	57.76%	-7.50%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	50.26%	50.01%	+0.25%

Dividends

IBIT vs. CLS - Dividend Comparison

Neither IBIT nor CLS has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IBIT and CLS in my portfolio?

IBIT and CLS 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.

Which is riskier, IBIT or CLS?

CLS has higher volatility (26.92%) compared to IBIT (12.68%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IBIT dropped -52.11% vs CLS's -96.93%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CLS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.60 vs -0.88), 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.