WULF vs. CAN

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

WULF (TeraWulf Inc.) and CAN (Canaan Inc.) are both stocks. Both are in the Technology sector — WULF in Information Technology Services, CAN in Computer Hardware. Over the past 3 years, WULF returned 73.04%/yr vs -54.41%/yr for CAN. At a 0.46 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

WULF vs. CAN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in TeraWulf Inc. (WULF) and Canaan Inc. (CAN). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, WULF achieves a 56.48% return, which is significantly higher than CAN's -59.97% return.

WULF

• 1D: -7.18%
• 1M: -35.81%
• 6M: 30.01%
• YTD: 56.48%
• 1Y: 242.48%
• 3Y*: 73.04%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CAN

• 1D: -5.25%
• 1M: -19.87%
• 6M: -66.32%
• YTD: -59.97%
• 1Y: -71.76%
• 3Y*: -54.41%
• 5Y*: -45.55%
• 10Y*: —

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

WULF vs. CAN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
WULF TeraWulf Inc.	56.48%	103.00%	135.83%	260.58%	-95.58%	-52.66%
CAN Canaan Inc.	-59.97%	-66.34%	-11.26%	12.14%	-60.00%	-8.69%

Correlation

The correlation between WULF and CAN is 0.46, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.46
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.50
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 14, 2021	0.46

Fundamentals

Market Cap WULF : $8.91B CAN : $129.71M
EPS WULF : -$2.52 CAN : -$0.35
PS Ratio WULF : 43.58 CAN : 0.33
Total Revenue (TTM) WULF : $168.06M CAN : $510.04M
Gross Profit (TTM) WULF : $107.59M CAN : $17.56M
EBITDA (TTM) WULF : -$132.10M CAN : -$144.51M

Return for Risk

WULF vs. CAN — Risk / Return Rank

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

WULF

WULF Risk / Return Rank: 94
WULF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
WULF Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
WULF Omega Ratio Rank: 89
WULF Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
WULF Martin Ratio Rank: 97

CAN

CAN Risk / Return Rank: 15
CAN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 16
CAN Sortino Ratio Rank: 14
CAN Omega Ratio Rank: 17
CAN Calmar Ratio Rank: 11
CAN Martin Ratio Rank: 16

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.

WULF vs. CAN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for TeraWulf Inc. (WULF) and Canaan Inc. (CAN). 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.

	WULF	CAN	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.32	-0.62	+2.93
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.13	-0.91	+4.04
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	0.91	+0.46
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.43	-0.83	+7.26
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	18.59	-1.18	+19.76

WULF vs. CAN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current WULF Sharpe Ratio is 2.32, which is higher than the CAN Sharpe Ratio of -0.62. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of WULF and CAN, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

WULF vs. CAN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum WULF drawdown since its inception was -98.30%, roughly equal to the maximum CAN drawdown of -99.27%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for WULF and CAN.

Drawdown Indicators

	WULF	CAN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-98.30%	-99.27%	+0.97%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-37.96%	-86.98%	+49.02%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-75.19%	-91.63%	+16.44%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-97.50%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-43.44%	-99.24%	+55.80%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-80.81%	-83.97%	+3.16%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	13.11%	61.08%	-47.97%

Volatility

WULF vs. CAN - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for TeraWulf Inc. (WULF) is 24.12%, while Canaan Inc. (CAN) has a volatility of 30.41%. This indicates that WULF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CAN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	WULF	CAN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	24.12%	30.41%	-6.29%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	65.33%	63.93%	+1.40%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	105.69%	116.91%	-11.22%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	127.31%	111.77%	+15.54%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	127.31%	126.17%	+1.14%

Dividends

WULF vs. CAN - Dividend Comparison

Neither WULF nor CAN has paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
CAN Canaan Inc.	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
WULF TeraWulf Inc.	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	33.22%

Financials

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both WULF and CAN in my portfolio?

WULF and CAN have a correlation of 0.46, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, WULF or CAN?

CAN has higher volatility (30.41%) compared to WULF (24.12%). In terms of maximum drawdown, WULF dropped -98.30% vs CAN's -99.27%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

WULF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.32 vs -0.62), 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.