LUG.TO vs. L.TO
LUG.TO (Lundin Gold Inc.) and L.TO (Loblaw Companies Limited) are both stocks. LUG.TO operates in Gold (Basic Materials), while L.TO operates in Grocery Stores (Consumer Defensive). Over the past 10 years, LUG.TO returned 33.45%/yr vs 26.65%/yr for L.TO. At a 0.03 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.
Performance
LUG.TO vs. L.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, LUG.TO achieves a -22.75% return, which is significantly lower than L.TO's 2.62% return. Over the past 10 years, LUG.TO has outperformed L.TO with an annualized return of 33.45%, while L.TO has yielded a comparatively lower 26.65% annualized return.
LUG.TO
- 1D
- 2.70%
- 1M
- 1.97%
- YTD
- -22.75%
- 6M
- -26.88%
- 1Y
- 23.78%
- 3Y*
- 84.88%
- 5Y*
- 56.43%
- 10Y*
- 33.45%
L.TO
- 1D
- -1.11%
- 1M
- 3.42%
- YTD
- 2.62%
- 6M
- 2.89%
- 1Y
- 15.10%
- 3Y*
- 34.35%
- 5Y*
- 33.11%
- 10Y*
- 26.65%
LUG.TO vs. L.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LUG.TO Lundin Gold Inc. | -22.75% | 291.22% | 91.60% | 29.55% | 30.60% | -4.67% | 31.21% | 66.93% | 10.15% | -13.88% |
L.TO Loblaw Companies Limited | 2.62% | 34.69% | 54.55% | 13.67% | 21.98% | 76.92% | 1.32% | 17.76% | 51.51% | 4.10% |
Correlation
The correlation between LUG.TO and L.TO is -0.03, 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 | -0.03 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.05 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.04 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.02 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 20, 2006 | 0.03 |
Fundamentals
LUG.TO:
CA$19.57B
L.TO:
CA$74.67B
LUG.TO:
$3.77
L.TO:
CA$3.72
LUG.TO:
15.08
L.TO:
17.05
LUG.TO:
6.90
L.TO:
0.73
LUG.TO:
10.14
L.TO:
6.85
LUG.TO:
$2.00B
L.TO:
CA$64.25B
LUG.TO:
$1.41B
L.TO:
CA$19.91B
LUG.TO:
$1.43B
L.TO:
CA$7.21B
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
LUG.TO vs. L.TO — Risk / Return Rank
LUG.TO
L.TO
LUG.TO vs. L.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Lundin Gold Inc. (LUG.TO) and Loblaw Companies Limited (L.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.
| LUG.TO | L.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.29 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.17 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.12 | 1.14 | -0.02 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.63 | 1.04 | -0.41 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 1.59 | 2.43 | -0.84 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
LUG.TO vs. L.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LUG.TO drawdown since its inception was -94.74%, which is greater than L.TO's maximum drawdown of -44.67%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LUG.TO and L.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| LUG.TO | L.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -94.74% | -44.67% | -50.07% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -37.88% | -14.53% | -23.35% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -37.88% | -14.53% | -23.35% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -37.88% | -14.53% | -23.35% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -41.84% | -18.54% | -23.30% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -31.49% | -8.06% | -23.43% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -67.69% | -7.05% | -60.64% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 14.98% | 6.22% | +8.76% |
Volatility
LUG.TO vs. L.TO - Volatility Comparison
Lundin Gold Inc. (LUG.TO) has a higher volatility of 18.19% compared to Loblaw Companies Limited (L.TO) at 6.47%. This indicates that LUG.TO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than L.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| LUG.TO | L.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 18.19% | 6.47% | +11.72% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 43.00% | 16.19% | +26.81% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 56.40% | 21.21% | +35.19% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 46.24% | 18.94% | +27.30% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 43.51% | 20.39% | +23.12% |
Dividends
LUG.TO vs. L.TO - Dividend Comparison
LUG.TO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.48%, more than L.TO's 0.91% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
L.TO Loblaw Companies Limited | 0.91% | 2.19% | 4.20% | 5.43% | 5.28% | 5.40% | 8.15% | 7.40% | 6.45% | 7.84% | 7.27% | 7.61% |
LUG.TO Lundin Gold Inc. | 6.48% | 3.35% | 2.69% | 3.26% | 1.97% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Financials
LUG.TO vs. L.TO - Financials Comparison
This section allows you to compare key financial metrics between Lundin Gold Inc. and Loblaw Companies Limited. 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
LUG.TO vs. L.TO - Profitability Comparison
LUG.TO - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Lundin Gold Inc. reported a gross profit of 420.70M and revenue of 567.38M. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 74.2%.
L.TO - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Loblaw Companies Limited reported a gross profit of 4.54B and revenue of 14.48B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 31.3%.
LUG.TO - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Lundin Gold Inc. reported an operating income of 391.03M and revenue of 567.38M, resulting in an operating margin of 68.9%.
L.TO - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Loblaw Companies Limited reported an operating income of 1.01B and revenue of 14.48B, resulting in an operating margin of 7.0%.
LUG.TO - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Lundin Gold Inc. reported a net income of 273.33M and revenue of 567.38M, resulting in a net margin of 48.2%.
L.TO - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Loblaw Companies Limited reported a net income of 594.00M and revenue of 14.48B, resulting in a net margin of 4.1%.
Frequently Asked Questions
LUG.TO and L.TO have a correlation of -0.03, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
Find the right allocation for LUG.TO and L.TO
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