MARA vs. CLF
MARA (MARA Holdings, Inc.) and CLF (Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.) are both stocks. MARA operates in Capital Markets (Financial Services), while CLF operates in Steel (Basic Materials). Over the past 10 years, MARA returned -10.09%/yr vs 11.73%/yr for CLF. At a 0.20 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.
Performance
MARA vs. CLF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, MARA achieves a 56.79% return, which is significantly higher than CLF's 3.77% return. Over the past 10 years, MARA has underperformed CLF with an annualized return of -10.09%, while CLF has yielded a comparatively higher 11.73% annualized return.
MARA
- 1D
- 3.45%
- 1M
- 10.43%
- YTD
- 56.79%
- 6M
- 22.22%
- 1Y
- -11.00%
- 3Y*
- 13.30%
- 5Y*
- -11.91%
- 10Y*
- -10.09%
CLF
- 1D
- 0.51%
- 1M
- 25.39%
- YTD
- 3.77%
- 6M
- 8.42%
- 1Y
- 91.92%
- 3Y*
- -6.24%
- 5Y*
- -10.83%
- 10Y*
- 11.73%
MARA vs. CLF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MARA MARA Holdings, Inc. | 56.79% | -46.45% | -28.61% | 586.84% | -89.59% | 214.75% | 1,084.48% | -39.16% | -91.17% | -40.41% |
CLF Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. | 3.77% | 41.28% | -53.97% | 26.75% | -26.00% | 49.52% | 77.38% | 12.72% | 6.66% | -14.27% |
Correlation
The correlation between MARA and CLF is 0.33, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.33 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.31 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.32 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.25 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 4, 2012 | 0.20 |
The correlation between MARA and CLF shifts across timeframes, from 0.20 (all time) to 0.33 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Fundamentals
MARA:
$5.35B
CLF:
$7.78B
MARA:
-$4.95
CLF:
-$2.37
MARA:
6.68
CLF:
0.37
MARA:
$867.82M
CLF:
$18.90B
MARA:
$164.95M
CLF:
-$528.00M
MARA:
$373.68M
CLF:
$134.00M
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
MARA vs. CLF — Risk / Return Rank
MARA
CLF
MARA vs. CLF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for MARA Holdings, Inc. (MARA) and Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. (CLF). 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.
| MARA | CLF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.49 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.54 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.04 | 1.25 | -0.21 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.16 | 1.79 | -1.95 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.26 | 3.68 | -3.94 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
MARA vs. CLF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum MARA drawdown since its inception was -99.74%, roughly equal to the maximum CLF drawdown of -98.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MARA and CLF.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| MARA | CLF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -99.74% | -98.78% | -0.96% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -70.53% | -51.67% | -18.86% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -78.34% | -74.46% | -3.88% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -95.87% | -82.37% | -13.50% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -99.20% | -82.37% | -16.83% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -90.90% | -85.95% | -4.95% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -78.00% | -47.62% | -30.38% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 42.56% | 25.06% | +17.50% |
Volatility
MARA vs. CLF - Volatility Comparison
MARA Holdings, Inc. (MARA) has a higher volatility of 23.71% compared to Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. (CLF) at 22.19%. This indicates that MARA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CLF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| MARA | CLF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 23.71% | 22.19% | +1.52% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 60.50% | 47.32% | +13.18% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 79.29% | 68.48% | +10.81% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 105.98% | 59.28% | +46.70% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 144.15% | 62.12% | +82.03% |
Dividends
MARA vs. CLF - Dividend Comparison
Neither MARA nor CLF has paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CLF Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.82% | 3.10% |
MARA MARA Holdings, Inc. | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Financials
MARA vs. CLF - Financials Comparison
This section allows you to compare key financial metrics between MARA Holdings, Inc. and Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.. 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
Frequently Asked Questions
MARA and CLF have a correlation of 0.33, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
MARA has higher volatility (23.71%) compared to CLF (22.19%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MARA dropped -99.74% vs CLF's -98.78%.
CLF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.35 vs -0.14), 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.
Find the right allocation for MARA and CLF
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