MMM vs. CWT
MMM (3M Company) and CWT (California Water Service Group) are both stocks. MMM operates in Conglomerates (Industrials), while CWT operates in Utilities - Regulated Water (Utilities). Over the past 10 years, MMM returned 4.58%/yr vs 5.57%/yr for CWT. At a 0.25 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.
Performance
MMM vs. CWT - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, MMM achieves a -0.15% return, which is significantly lower than CWT's 6.79% return. Over the past 10 years, MMM has underperformed CWT with an annualized return of 4.58%, while CWT has yielded a comparatively higher 5.57% annualized return.
MMM
- 1D
- 0.26%
- 1M
- 8.84%
- YTD
- -0.15%
- 6M
- -5.36%
- 1Y
- 13.32%
- 3Y*
- 26.46%
- 5Y*
- 2.22%
- 10Y*
- 4.58%
CWT
- 1D
- 0.49%
- 1M
- 7.30%
- YTD
- 6.79%
- 6M
- 4.76%
- 1Y
- 1.17%
- 3Y*
- -3.04%
- 5Y*
- -2.91%
- 10Y*
- 5.57%
MMM vs. CWT - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MMM 3M Company | -0.15% | 26.36% | 46.13% | -3.33% | -29.63% | 4.85% | 2.77% | -4.29% | -16.90% | 34.90% |
CWT California Water Service Group | 6.79% | -1.81% | -10.64% | -12.83% | -14.13% | 35.05% | 6.68% | 9.85% | 7.06% | 36.39% |
Correlation
The correlation between MMM and CWT is 0.10, 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 | 0.10 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.21 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.28 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.27 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 26, 1990 | 0.25 |
The correlation between MMM and CWT shifts across timeframes, from 0.10 (1 year) to 0.28 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Fundamentals
MMM:
$84.35B
CWT:
$2.72B
MMM:
$5.17
CWT:
$1.99
MMM:
30.65
CWT:
22.87
MMM:
3.41
CWT:
2.69
MMM:
25.85
CWT:
1.52
MMM:
$25.02B
CWT:
$1.01B
MMM:
$9.89B
CWT:
$366.63M
MMM:
$5.28B
CWT:
$329.51M
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
MMM vs. CWT — Risk / Return Rank
MMM
CWT
MMM vs. CWT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for 3M Company (MMM) and California Water Service Group (CWT). 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.
| MMM | CWT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.43 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.62 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.10 | 1.02 | +0.07 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.61 | 0.03 | +0.58 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 1.35 | 0.05 | +1.29 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
MMM vs. CWT - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum MMM drawdown since its inception was -59.10%, which is greater than CWT's maximum drawdown of -38.21%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MMM and CWT.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| MMM | CWT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -59.10% | -38.21% | -20.89% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -18.77% | -14.59% | -4.18% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -22.87% | -24.13% | +1.26% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -53.34% | -38.21% | -15.13% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -59.10% | -38.21% | -20.89% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -8.45% | -29.87% | +21.42% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -16.10% | -11.70% | -4.40% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 8.48% | 7.73% | +0.75% |
Volatility
MMM vs. CWT - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for 3M Company (MMM) is 6.23%, while California Water Service Group (CWT) has a volatility of 7.70%. This indicates that MMM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CWT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| MMM | CWT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.23% | 7.70% | -1.47% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 19.26% | 18.76% | +0.50% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 25.96% | 24.20% | +1.76% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 28.30% | 24.30% | +4.00% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 26.53% | 27.74% | -1.21% |
Dividends
MMM vs. CWT - Dividend Comparison
MMM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.91%, less than CWT's 2.79% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CWT California Water Service Group | 2.79% | 2.86% | 2.47% | 2.01% | 1.65% | 1.28% | 1.57% | 1.53% | 1.57% | 1.59% | 2.04% | 2.88% |
MMM 3M Company | 1.91% | 1.82% | 16.27% | 5.49% | 4.97% | 3.33% | 3.36% | 3.26% | 2.86% | 2.00% | 2.49% | 2.72% |
Financials
MMM vs. CWT - Financials Comparison
This section allows you to compare key financial metrics between 3M Company and California Water Service Group. 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
MMM vs. CWT - Profitability Comparison
MMM - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, 3M Company reported a gross profit of 2.46B and revenue of 6.03B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 40.7%.
CWT - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, California Water Service Group reported a gross profit of 0.00 and revenue of 214.57M. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 0.0%.
MMM - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, 3M Company reported an operating income of 1.40B and revenue of 6.03B, resulting in an operating margin of 23.2%.
CWT - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, California Water Service Group reported an operating income of 18.16M and revenue of 214.57M, resulting in an operating margin of 8.5%.
MMM - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, 3M Company reported a net income of 653.00M and revenue of 6.03B, resulting in a net margin of 10.8%.
CWT - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Jun 2026, California Water Service Group reported a net income of 4.04M and revenue of 214.57M, resulting in a net margin of 1.9%.
Frequently Asked Questions
MMM and CWT have a correlation of 0.10, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
CWT has higher volatility (7.70%) compared to MMM (6.23%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MMM dropped -59.10% vs CWT's -38.21%.
MMM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.44 vs 0.02), 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 MMM and CWT
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