NNDM vs. CLF
NNDM (Nano Dimension Ltd.) and CLF (Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.) are both stocks. NNDM operates in Computer Hardware (Technology), while CLF operates in Steel (Basic Materials). Over the past 10 years, NNDM returned -31.82%/yr vs 4.33%/yr for CLF. Their 0.18 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship.
Performance
NNDM vs. CLF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, NNDM achieves a -2.60% return, which is significantly higher than CLF's -13.25% return. Over the past 10 years, NNDM has underperformed CLF with an annualized return of -31.82%, while CLF has yielded a comparatively higher 4.33% annualized return.
NNDM
- 1D
- -2.60%
- 1M
- 3.45%
- 6M
- -15.73%
- YTD
- -2.60%
- 1Y
- 11.11%
- 3Y*
- -21.58%
- 5Y*
- -25.02%
- 10Y*
- -31.82%
- ALL TIME*
- -31.53%
CLF
- 1D
- -0.95%
- 1M
- 16.84%
- 6M
- -16.28%
- YTD
- -13.25%
- 1Y
- 14.51%
- 3Y*
- -13.29%
- 5Y*
- -14.35%
- 10Y*
- 4.33%
- ALL TIME*
- 6.98%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $404.71M | $285.99M | $240.22M | |
| $4.96M | $3.90M | $6.00M |
NNDM vs. CLF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NNDM Nano Dimension Ltd. | -2.60% | -37.90% | 3.33% | 4.35% | -39.47% | -58.24% | 259.68% | -77.21% | -63.84% | -48.40% |
CLF Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. | -13.25% | 41.28% | -53.97% | 26.75% | -26.00% | 49.52% | 77.38% | 12.72% | 6.66% | -14.27% |
Correlation
The correlation between NNDM and CLF is 0.28, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.28 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.29 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.30 |
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions. | 0.20 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 7, 2016 | 0.18 |
The correlation between NNDM and CLF shifts across timeframes, from 0.18 (all time) to 0.30 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Fundamentals
NNDM:
$315.76M
CLF:
$6.57B
NNDM:
-$2.36
CLF:
-$2.26
NNDM:
1.60
CLF:
0.23
NNDM:
$102.44M
CLF:
$19.20B
NNDM:
$34.35M
CLF:
-$319.00M
NNDM:
-$78.81M
CLF:
$294.00M
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
NNDM vs. CLF — Risk / Return Rank
NNDM
CLF
NNDM vs. CLF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Nano Dimension Ltd. (NNDM) 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.
| NNDM | CLF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.02 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.09 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.07 | 1.09 | -0.01 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.17 | 0.18 | -0.02 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 0.38 | 0.34 | +0.04 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
NNDM vs. CLF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum NNDM drawdown since its inception was -99.27%, roughly equal to the maximum CLF drawdown of -98.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NNDM and CLF.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| NNDM | CLF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -99.27% | -98.78% | -0.49% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -42.52% | -51.67% | +9.15% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -61.32% | -74.46% | +13.14% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -81.25% | -82.37% | +1.12% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -99.25% | -82.37% | -16.88% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -98.31% | -88.25% | -10.06% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -81.51% | -47.77% | -33.74% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 18.78% | 27.94% | -9.16% |
Volatility
NNDM vs. CLF - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Nano Dimension Ltd. (NNDM) is 8.86%, while Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. (CLF) has a volatility of 20.47%. This indicates that NNDM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CLF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| NNDM | CLF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 8.86% | 20.47% | -11.61% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 44.30% | 50.08% | -5.78% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 57.90% | 68.52% | -10.62% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 53.31% | 59.51% | -6.20% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 135.97% | 62.07% | +73.90% |
Dividends
NNDM vs. CLF - Dividend Comparison
Neither NNDM 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% |
NNDM Nano Dimension Ltd. | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Financials
NNDM vs. CLF - Financials Comparison
This section allows you to compare key financial metrics between Nano Dimension Ltd. 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
NNDM vs. CLF - Profitability Comparison
NNDM - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Aug 2026, Nano Dimension Ltd. reported a gross profit of 13.25M and revenue of 35.32M. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 37.5%.
CLF - Gross Margin
Gross margin is calculated as gross profit divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Aug 2026, Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. reported a gross profit of 0.00 and revenue of 5.23B. Therefore, the gross margin over that period was 0.0%.
NNDM - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Aug 2026, Nano Dimension Ltd. reported an operating income of 4.40M and revenue of 35.32M, resulting in an operating margin of 12.5%.
CLF - Operating Margin
Operating margin is calculated as operating income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Aug 2026, Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. reported an operating income of 1.00M and revenue of 5.23B, resulting in an operating margin of 0.0%.
NNDM - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Aug 2026, Nano Dimension Ltd. reported a net income of 0.00 and revenue of 35.32M, resulting in a net margin of 0.0%.
CLF - Net Margin
Net margin is calculated as net income divided by revenue. For the three months ending on Aug 2026, Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. reported a net income of -145.00M and revenue of 5.23B, resulting in a net margin of -2.8%.
Frequently Asked Questions
NNDM and CLF have a correlation of 0.28, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
CLF has higher volatility (20.47%) compared to NNDM (8.86%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NNDM dropped -99.27% vs CLF's -98.78%.
CLF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.14 vs 0.12), 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 NNDM 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