LFST vs. CLS

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

LFST (LifeStance Health Group, Inc.) and CLS (Celestica Inc.) are both stocks. LFST operates in Medical Care Facilities (Healthcare), while CLS operates in Electronic Components (Technology). Over the past 3 years, LFST returned -3.94%/yr vs 226.85%/yr for CLS. At a 0.15 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

LFST vs. CLS - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LFST achieves a 6.53% return, which is significantly lower than CLS's 54.98% return.

LFST

• 1D: -3.35%
• 1M: 3.16%
• YTD: 6.53%
• 6M: 17.19%
• 1Y: 25.84%
• 3Y*: -3.94%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CLS

• 1D: -3.02%
• 1M: 8.89%
• YTD: 54.98%
• 6M: 48.55%
• 1Y: 277.82%
• 3Y*: 226.85%
• 5Y*: 121.36%
• 10Y*: 45.51%

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

LFST vs. CLS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
LFST LifeStance Health Group, Inc.	6.53%	-4.48%	-5.87%	58.50%	-48.11%	-56.53%
CLS Celestica Inc.	54.98%	220.27%	215.23%	159.80%	1.26%	32.03%

Correlation

The correlation between LFST and CLS is 0.02, 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	0.02
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.08
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 11, 2021	0.15

The correlation between LFST and CLS shifts across timeframes, from 0.02 (1 year) to 0.15 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Fundamentals

Market Cap LFST : $2.96B CLS : $53.01B
EPS LFST : $0.06 CLS : $8.28
PE Ratio LFST : 126.10 CLS : 55.30
PEG Ratio LFST : 1.30 CLS : 0.74
PS Ratio LFST : 1.96 CLS : 3.84
PB Ratio LFST : 2.01 CLS : 25.26
Total Revenue (TTM) LFST : $1.49B CLS : $13.81B
Gross Profit (TTM) LFST : $323.87M CLS : $1.60B
EBITDA (TTM) LFST : $83.67M CLS : $1.32B

Return for Risk

LFST vs. CLS — Risk / Return Rank

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

LFST

LFST Risk / Return Rank: 59
LFST Sharpe Ratio Rank: 58
LFST Sortino Ratio Rank: 60
LFST Omega Ratio Rank: 59
LFST Calmar Ratio Rank: 56
LFST Martin Ratio Rank: 60

CLS

CLS Risk / Return Rank: 94
CLS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
CLS Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
CLS Omega Ratio Rank: 91
CLS Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
CLS Martin Ratio Rank: 96

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.

LFST vs. CLS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for LifeStance Health Group, Inc. (LFST) 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.

	LFST	CLS	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	0.47	3.96	-3.49
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.26	3.41	-2.15
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.16	1.46	-0.30
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.71	9.57	-8.86
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	1.99	24.15	-22.16
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LFST vs. CLS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LFST Sharpe Ratio is 0.47, which is lower than the CLS Sharpe Ratio of 3.96. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LFST 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	LFST	CLS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.47	3.96	-3.49
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	2.14	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.92	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.29	0.28	-0.57

Drawdowns

LFST vs. CLS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LFST drawdown since its inception was -86.91%, smaller than the maximum CLS drawdown of -96.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LFST and CLS.

Drawdown Indicators

	LFST	CLS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-86.91%	-96.93%	+10.02%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-36.30%	-29.24%	-7.06%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-59.68%	-53.96%	-5.72%
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	-74.09%	-3.02%	-71.07%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-72.77%	-73.38%	+0.61%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	13.11%	11.57%	+1.54%

Volatility

LFST vs. CLS - Volatility Comparison

LifeStance Health Group, Inc. (LFST) has a higher volatility of 25.53% compared to Celestica Inc. (CLS) at 22.24%. This indicates that LFST's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CLS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LFST	CLS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	25.53%	22.24%	+3.29%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	33.02%	53.06%	-20.04%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	55.02%	70.76%	-15.74%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	67.44%	57.21%	+10.23%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	67.44%	49.69%	+17.75%

Dividends

LFST vs. CLS - Dividend Comparison

Neither LFST nor CLS has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Financials

LFST vs. CLS - Profitability Comparison

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

LFST - Gross Margin

Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, LifeStance Health Group, Inc. reported a gross profit of 0.00 and revenue of 403.48M. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 0.0%.

CLS - 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%.

LFST - Operating Margin

Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, LifeStance Health Group, Inc. reported an operating income of 22.28M and revenue of 403.48M, resulting in an operating margin of 5.5%.

CLS - 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 272.10M and revenue of 4.05B, resulting in an operating margin of 6.7%.

LFST - Net Margin

Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, LifeStance Health Group, Inc. reported a net income of 14.24M and revenue of 403.48M, resulting in a net margin of 3.5%.

CLS - 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 LFST and CLS in my portfolio?

LFST and CLS have a correlation of 0.02, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LFST or CLS?

LFST has higher volatility (25.53%) compared to CLS (22.24%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LFST dropped -86.91% vs CLS's -96.93%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CLS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.96 vs 0.47), 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.