LAC vs. COST

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

LAC (Lithium Americas Corp.) and COST (Costco Wholesale Corporation) are both stocks. LAC operates in Other Industrial Metals & Mining (Basic Materials), while COST operates in Discount Stores (Consumer Defensive). Over the past year, LAC returned 71.70% vs -0.24% for COST. At a 0.02 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

LAC vs. COST - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Lithium Americas Corp. (LAC) and Costco Wholesale Corporation (COST). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LAC achieves a 4.36% return, which is significantly lower than COST's 14.24% return.

LAC

• 1D: 3.17%
• 1M: -9.18%
• YTD: 4.36%
• 6M: -11.13%
• 1Y: 71.70%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

COST

• 1D: 0.68%
• 1M: -6.35%
• YTD: 14.24%
• 6M: 11.38%
• 1Y: -0.24%
• 3Y*: 25.12%
• 5Y*: 22.12%
• 10Y*: 22.27%

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

LAC vs. COST - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
LAC Lithium Americas Corp.	4.36%	46.80%	-53.59%	-27.19%
COST Costco Wholesale Corporation	14.24%	-5.39%	39.62%	19.71%

Correlation

The correlation between LAC and COST 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 2, 2023	0.02

Fundamentals

EPS LAC : -$0.28 COST : $26.51
Total Revenue (TTM) LAC : $0.00 COST : $293.59B
Gross Profit (TTM) LAC : -$580.22K COST : $11.12B
EBITDA (TTM) LAC : -$52.10M COST : $12.48B

Return for Risk

LAC vs. COST — Risk / Return Rank

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

LAC

LAC Risk / Return Rank: 69
LAC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
LAC Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
LAC Omega Ratio Rank: 76
LAC Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
LAC Martin Ratio Rank: 61

COST

COST Risk / Return Rank: 37
COST Sharpe Ratio Rank: 40
COST Sortino Ratio Rank: 32
COST Omega Ratio Rank: 32
COST Calmar Ratio Rank: 40
COST Martin Ratio Rank: 39

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.

LAC vs. COST - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Lithium Americas Corp. (LAC) and Costco Wholesale Corporation (COST). 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.

	LAC	COST	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.56	-0.08	+0.63
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.21	0.02	+2.19
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.00	+0.25
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.16	-0.10	+1.26
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.77	-0.22	+1.99

LAC vs. COST - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LAC Sharpe Ratio is 0.56, which is higher than the COST Sharpe Ratio of -0.08. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LAC and COST, 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

LAC vs. COST - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LAC drawdown since its inception was -81.83%, which is greater than COST's maximum drawdown of -53.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LAC and COST.

Drawdown Indicators

	LAC	COST	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-81.83%	-53.39%	-28.44%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-63.08%	-15.14%	-47.94%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-20.74%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-31.40%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-31.40%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-61.18%	-10.23%	-50.95%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-63.13%	-13.36%	-49.77%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	41.47%	6.67%	+34.80%

Volatility

LAC vs. COST - Volatility Comparison

Lithium Americas Corp. (LAC) has a higher volatility of 22.78% compared to Costco Wholesale Corporation (COST) at 7.44%. This indicates that LAC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than COST based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LAC	COST	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	22.78%	7.44%	+15.34%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	53.55%	14.53%	+39.02%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	132.17%	18.80%	+113.37%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	101.55%	22.72%	+78.83%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	101.55%	21.95%	+79.60%

Dividends

LAC vs. COST - Dividend Comparison

LAC has not paid dividends to shareholders, while COST's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.55%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
COST Costco Wholesale Corporation	0.55%	0.59%	0.49%	2.87%	0.76%	0.54%	3.38%	0.86%	1.08%	4.81%	1.09%	4.06%
LAC Lithium Americas Corp.	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Financials

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LAC and COST in my portfolio?

LAC and COST 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.

Which is riskier, LAC or COST?

LAC has higher volatility (22.78%) compared to COST (7.44%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LAC dropped -81.83% vs COST's -53.39%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LAC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.56 vs -0.08), 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.