LULU vs. ATZ.TO

Last updated Apr 2, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about Lululemon Athletica Inc. (LULU) and Aritzia Inc. (ATZ.TO).

Performance

LULU vs. ATZ.TO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Lululemon Athletica Inc. (LULU) and Aritzia Inc. (ATZ.TO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

LULU vs. ATZ.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
LULU Lululemon Athletica Inc.	-23.58%	-45.66%	-25.21%	59.59%	-18.16%	12.48%	50.23%	90.50%	54.74%	20.93%
ATZ.TO Aritzia Inc.	-2.46%	130.12%	78.98%	-40.60%	-15.60%	104.49%	38.09%	21.96%	19.20%	-22.48%

Different Trading Currencies

LULU is traded in USD, while ATZ.TO is traded in CAD. To make them comparable, the ATZ.TO values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.

Fundamentals

EPS LULU : $14.54 ATZ.TO : CA$2.92
PE Ratio LULU : 10.92 ATZ.TO : 39.70
PEG Ratio LULU : 0.53 ATZ.TO : 0.20
PS Ratio LULU : 1.72 ATZ.TO : 4.04
Total Revenue (TTM) LULU : $11.07B ATZ.TO : CA$3.41B
Gross Profit (TTM) LULU : $6.47B ATZ.TO : CA$1.52B
EBITDA (TTM) LULU : $2.95B ATZ.TO : CA$635.63M

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LULU achieves a -23.58% return, which is significantly lower than ATZ.TO's -2.46% return.

LULU

• 1D: 3.73%
• 1M: -9.85%
• YTD: -23.58%
• 6M: -10.56%
• 1Y: -43.21%
• 3Y*: -24.17%
• 5Y*: -12.01%
• 10Y*: 8.74%

ATZ.TO

• 1D: 2.13%
• 1M: -4.84%
• YTD: -2.46%
• 6M: 42.60%
• 1Y: 137.45%
• 3Y*: 37.49%
• 5Y*: 27.36%
• 10Y*: —

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

Return for Risk

LULU vs. ATZ.TO — Risk / Return Rank

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

LULU

LULU Risk / Return Rank: 11
LULU Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6
LULU Sortino Ratio Rank: 9
LULU Omega Ratio Rank: 9
LULU Calmar Ratio Rank: 13
LULU Martin Ratio Rank: 20

ATZ.TO

ATZ.TO Risk / Return Rank: 93
ATZ.TO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
ATZ.TO Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
ATZ.TO Omega Ratio Rank: 94
ATZ.TO Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
ATZ.TO Martin Ratio Rank: 93

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.

LULU vs. ATZ.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Lululemon Athletica Inc. (LULU) and Aritzia Inc. (ATZ.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.

	LULU	ATZ.TO	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	-0.88	2.82	-3.70
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	-1.11	3.14	-4.25
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.85	1.50	-0.66
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.78	5.28	-6.05
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	-1.11	16.04	-17.15
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LULU vs. ATZ.TO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LULU Sharpe Ratio is -0.88, which is lower than the ATZ.TO Sharpe Ratio of 2.82. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LULU and ATZ.TO, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	LULU	ATZ.TO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.88	2.82	-3.70
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.29	0.57	-0.87
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.22	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.28	0.47	-0.19

Correlation

The correlation between LULU and ATZ.TO is 0.32, which is considered to be low. This implies their price changes are not closely related. A low correlation is generally favorable for portfolio diversification, as it helps to reduce overall risk by spreading it across multiple assets with different performance patterns.

Dividends

LULU vs. ATZ.TO - Dividend Comparison

Neither LULU nor ATZ.TO has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Drawdowns

LULU vs. ATZ.TO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LULU drawdown since its inception was -92.26%, which is greater than ATZ.TO's maximum drawdown of -68.11%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LULU and ATZ.TO.

Drawdown Indicators

	LULU	ATZ.TO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-92.26%	-64.82%	-27.44%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-56.49%	-26.02%	-30.47%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-71.48%	-64.82%	-6.66%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-71.48%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-68.94%	-15.93%	-53.01%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-27.13%	-20.46%	-6.67%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	39.56%	9.11%	+30.45%

Volatility

LULU vs. ATZ.TO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Lululemon Athletica Inc. (LULU) is 11.05%, while Aritzia Inc. (ATZ.TO) has a volatility of 13.96%. This indicates that LULU experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ATZ.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LULU	ATZ.TO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.05%	13.96%	-2.91%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	28.49%	28.10%	+0.39%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	49.09%	49.04%	+0.05%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	41.49%	47.89%	-6.40%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	40.19%	44.88%	-4.69%

Financials

LULU vs. ATZ.TO - Profitability Comparison

The chart below illustrates the profitability comparison between Lululemon Athletica Inc. and Aritzia Inc. over time, highlighting three key metrics: Gross Profit Margin, Operating Margin, and Net Profit Margin.

LULU - Gross Margin

Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, Lululemon Athletica Inc. reported a gross profit of 1.43B and revenue of 2.57B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 55.6%.

ATZ.TO - Gross Margin

Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, Aritzia Inc. reported a gross profit of 471.80M and revenue of 1.04B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 45.4%.

LULU - Operating Margin

Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, Lululemon Athletica Inc. reported an operating income of 444.69M and revenue of 2.57B, resulting in an operating margin of 17.3%.

ATZ.TO - Operating Margin

Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, Aritzia Inc. reported an operating income of 169.65M and revenue of 1.04B, resulting in an operating margin of 16.3%.

LULU - Net Margin

Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, Lululemon Athletica Inc. reported a net income of 306.84M and revenue of 2.57B, resulting in a net margin of 12.0%.

ATZ.TO - Net Margin

Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Apr 2026, Aritzia Inc. reported a net income of 138.89M and revenue of 1.04B, resulting in a net margin of 13.4%.