MA vs. CNQ.TO
MA (Mastercard Incorporated) and CNQ.TO (Canadian Natural Resources Limited) are both stocks. MA operates in Credit Services (Financial Services), while CNQ.TO operates in Oil & Gas E&P (Energy). Over the past 10 years, MA returned 18.64%/yr vs 22.38%/yr for CNQ.TO. At a 0.25 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.
Performance
MA vs. CNQ.TO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
MA is traded in USD, while CNQ.TO is traded in CAD. To make them comparable, the CNQ.TO values have been converted to USD using the latest available exchange rates.
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, MA achieves a -13.89% return, which is significantly lower than CNQ.TO's 34.88% return. Over the past 10 years, MA has underperformed CNQ.TO with an annualized return of 18.64%, while CNQ.TO has yielded a comparatively higher 22.38% annualized return.
MA
- 1D
- 0.71%
- 1M
- -0.85%
- YTD
- -13.89%
- 6M
- -14.05%
- 1Y
- -12.30%
- 3Y*
- 10.32%
- 5Y*
- 6.66%
- 10Y*
- 18.64%
CNQ.TO
- 1D
- -0.37%
- 1M
- -4.77%
- YTD
- 34.88%
- 6M
- 38.81%
- 1Y
- 39.22%
- 3Y*
- 25.15%
- 5Y*
- 30.05%
- 10Y*
- 22.38%
MA vs. CNQ.TO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MA Mastercard Incorporated | -13.89% | 9.04% | 24.17% | 23.40% | -2.66% | 1.16% | 20.19% | 59.16% | 25.31% | 47.69% |
CNQ.TO Canadian Natural Resources Limited | 34.88% | 15.70% | -0.18% | 30.08% | 53.38% | 91.35% | -10.82% | 44.81% | -27.46% | 18.95% |
Correlation
The correlation between MA and CNQ.TO is -0.16, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.16 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.03 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.14 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.20 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 12, 2006 | 0.25 |
The correlation between MA and CNQ.TO shifts across timeframes, from -0.16 (1 year) to 0.25 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Fundamentals
MA:
$437.55B
CNQ.TO:
CA$132.89B
MA:
$17.28
CNQ.TO:
CA$4.65
MA:
28.36
CNQ.TO:
13.64
MA:
1.65
CNQ.TO:
0.66
MA:
13.01
CNQ.TO:
3.34
MA:
65.09
CNQ.TO:
2.98
MA:
$33.94B
CNQ.TO:
CA$39.61B
MA:
$26.70B
CNQ.TO:
CA$12.42B
MA:
$21.23B
CNQ.TO:
CA$17.78B
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
MA vs. CNQ.TO — Risk / Return Rank
MA
CNQ.TO
MA vs. CNQ.TO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Mastercard Incorporated (MA) and Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNQ.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.
| MA | CNQ.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -2.24 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.89 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.89 | 1.26 | -0.37 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.79 | 3.09 | -3.88 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.59 | 6.86 | -8.44 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
MA vs. CNQ.TO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum MA drawdown since its inception was -62.67%, smaller than the maximum CNQ.TO drawdown of -76.64%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MA and CNQ.TO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| MA | CNQ.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -62.67% | -76.64% | +13.97% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -20.91% | -14.43% | -6.48% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -20.91% | -36.25% | +15.34% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -28.25% | -36.25% | +8.00% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -41.00% | -76.64% | +35.64% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -17.82% | -9.55% | -8.27% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -9.82% | -21.20% | +11.38% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 10.48% | 6.49% | +3.99% |
Volatility
MA vs. CNQ.TO - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Mastercard Incorporated (MA) is 6.46%, while Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNQ.TO) has a volatility of 8.84%. This indicates that MA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CNQ.TO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| MA | CNQ.TO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.46% | 8.84% | -2.38% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 17.51% | 24.25% | -6.74% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 22.34% | 29.57% | -7.23% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 24.01% | 31.39% | -7.38% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 26.92% | 38.81% | -11.89% |
Dividends
MA vs. CNQ.TO - Dividend Comparison
MA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.67%, less than CNQ.TO's 3.77% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CNQ.TO Canadian Natural Resources Limited | 2.84% | 5.05% | 6.00% | 8.53% | 12.23% | 7.63% | 11.35% | 7.29% | 8.31% | 5.00% | 4.49% | 6.22% |
MA Mastercard Incorporated | 0.67% | 0.53% | 0.50% | 0.53% | 0.56% | 0.49% | 0.45% | 0.44% | 0.53% | 0.58% | 0.74% | 0.66% |
Financials
MA vs. CNQ.TO - Financials Comparison
This section allows you to compare key financial metrics between Mastercard Incorporated and Canadian Natural Resources 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
MA vs. CNQ.TO - Profitability Comparison
MA - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Mastercard Incorporated reported a gross profit of 4.91B and revenue of 8.40B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 58.4%.
CNQ.TO - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Canadian Natural Resources Limited reported a gross profit of 3.47B and revenue of 10.81B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 32.1%.
MA - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Mastercard Incorporated reported an operating income of 4.91B and revenue of 8.40B, resulting in an operating margin of 58.4%.
CNQ.TO - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Canadian Natural Resources Limited reported an operating income of 2.67B and revenue of 10.81B, resulting in an operating margin of 24.7%.
MA - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Mastercard Incorporated reported a net income of 3.88B and revenue of 8.40B, resulting in a net margin of 46.2%.
CNQ.TO - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, Canadian Natural Resources Limited reported a net income of 1.35B and revenue of 10.81B, resulting in a net margin of 12.5%.
Frequently Asked Questions
MA and CNQ.TO have a correlation of -0.16, 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 MA and CNQ.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