WULF vs. CIFR
WULF (TeraWulf Inc.) and CIFR (Cipher Mining Inc.) are both stocks. Both operate in the Capital Markets industry within the Financial Services sector. Over the past 3 years, WULF returned 159.91%/yr vs 116.66%/yr for CIFR. A 0.59 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined.
Performance
WULF vs. CIFR - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, WULF achieves a 127.68% return, which is significantly higher than CIFR's 77.78% return.
WULF
- 1D
- -1.25%
- 1M
- 17.36%
- YTD
- 127.68%
- 6M
- 81.29%
- 1Y
- 592.06%
- 3Y*
- 159.91%
- 5Y*
- 23.07%
- 10Y*
- 11.07%
CIFR
- 1D
- -0.19%
- 1M
- 46.67%
- YTD
- 77.78%
- 6M
- 40.85%
- 1Y
- 663.90%
- 3Y*
- 116.66%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
WULF vs. CIFR - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
WULF TeraWulf Inc. | 127.68% | 103.00% | 135.83% | 260.58% | -95.58% | -38.55% |
CIFR Cipher Mining Inc. | 77.78% | 218.10% | 12.35% | 637.50% | -87.90% | -54.92% |
Correlation
The correlation between WULF and CIFR is 0.78, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.78 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.73 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 31, 2021 | 0.59 |
The correlation between WULF and CIFR shifts across timeframes, from 0.59 (all time) to 0.78 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Fundamentals
WULF:
$11.07B
CIFR:
$10.63B
WULF:
-$2.55
CIFR:
-$2.33
WULF:
62.62
CIFR:
57.66
WULF:
$168.06M
CIFR:
$174.98M
WULF:
$107.59M
CIFR:
-$172.84M
WULF:
-$132.10M
CIFR:
-$169.22M
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
WULF vs. CIFR — Risk / Return Rank
WULF
CIFR
WULF vs. CIFR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for TeraWulf Inc. (WULF) and Cipher Mining Inc. (CIFR). 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.
| WULF | CIFR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 5.59 | 6.19 | -0.60 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 4.56 | 4.23 | +0.33 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.54 | 1.49 | +0.05 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 18.82 | 13.04 | +5.78 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 49.71 | 26.19 | +23.52 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| WULF | CIFR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 5.59 | 6.19 | -0.60 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.18 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.11 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.11 | 0.18 | -0.07 |
Drawdowns
WULF vs. CIFR - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum WULF drawdown since its inception was -98.50%, roughly equal to the maximum CIFR drawdown of -97.16%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for WULF and CIFR.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| WULF | CIFR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -98.50% | -97.16% | -1.34% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -31.74% | -51.38% | +19.64% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -75.77% | -71.74% | -4.03% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -98.50% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -98.50% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -27.47% | -0.19% | -27.28% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -46.68% | -66.62% | +19.94% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 11.99% | 25.53% | -13.54% |
Volatility
WULF vs. CIFR - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for TeraWulf Inc. (WULF) is 22.16%, while Cipher Mining Inc. (CIFR) has a volatility of 31.03%. This indicates that WULF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CIFR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| WULF | CIFR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 22.16% | 31.03% | -8.87% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 64.17% | 70.59% | -6.42% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 106.93% | 108.31% | -1.38% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 127.54% | 121.98% | +5.56% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 101.31% | 121.98% | -20.67% |
Dividends
WULF vs. CIFR - Dividend Comparison
Neither WULF nor CIFR has paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CIFR Cipher Mining 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
WULF vs. CIFR - Financials Comparison
This section allows you to compare key financial metrics between TeraWulf Inc. and Cipher Mining 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
WULF and CIFR have a correlation of 0.78, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
CIFR has higher volatility (31.03%) compared to WULF (22.16%). In terms of maximum drawdown, WULF dropped -98.50% vs CIFR's -97.16%.
CIFR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (6.19 vs 5.59), 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 WULF and CIFR
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