CLS vs ANET: Stock Returns, Risk & Volatility (2026)

Q: Which is a better investment: CLS or ANET?

Over the past year, CLS looks like the better investment: it had higher total return (CLS +264.5% vs ANET +72.1%) and a higher Sharpe ratio (CLS 2.49 vs ANET 1.27). On risk, ANET was less volatile (ANET 51.3% vs CLS 67.6%), ANET had a smaller max drawdown (ANET -28.3% vs CLS -29.2%), and ANET had less severe losses on the worst 5% of days (Expected Shortfall of ANET -6.59% vs CLS -9.39%).

Written by Gale Finance Team

Reviewed by Sid Kalla CFA Charterholder

Quick answer

Which is a better investment: CLS or ANET?

Over the past year, CLS outperformed (+264.5% vs +72.1%) with a Sharpe ratio of 2.49.

Total Return

CLS WIN +264.5%

ANET +72.1%

Sharpe Ratio

CLS WIN 2.49

ANET 1.27

Annualized Volatility

CLS 67.6%

ANET WIN 51.3%

Max Drawdown

CLS -29.2%

ANET WIN -28.3%

Analysis period: 2025-04-14 to 2026-04-10

CLS Total Return

↑ +264.5%

ANET Total Return

↑ +72.1%

Relative Performance of CLS vs ANET (Normalized to 100)

CLS ANET

Normalized to 100 at start date for comparison

Key Takeaways

Total Return: CLS delivered a +264.5% total return, while ANET returned +72.1% over the same period. CLS outperformed on total returns.
Risk-Adjusted Return (Sharpe Ratio): CLS had a higher Sharpe (2.49 vs 1.27), indicating better risk-adjusted performance.
Volatility (Annualized): CLS was more volatile, with 67.6% annualized volatility, versus 51.3% for ANET.
Maximum Drawdown: ANET's maximum drawdown was -28.3%, while CLS experienced a deeper drawdown of -29.2%.
Tail Risk (VaR & Expected Shortfall): At the 5% level (daily log returns), CLS's VaR was -6.90% and its Expected Shortfall (CVaR) was -9.39%; ANET's were -4.69% and -6.59%. VaR is the cutoff; Expected Shortfall is the average move on the worst days.
Skew & Kurtosis: Skew: CLS -0.34 vs ANET 0.24. Excess kurtosis: CLS 1.39 vs ANET 2.51. Negative skew leans downside; higher excess kurtosis means fatter tails.
Tail Days & Extremes: 2σ tail days (down/up): CLS 7/4, ANET 6/5. Worst day: CLS -13.10% (2026-01-29) vs ANET -9.23% (2026-03-26). Best day: CLS +16.51% (2025-07-29) vs ANET +17.49% (2025-08-06).
Risk ratios: Sortino - CLS: 3.85 vs. ANET: 1.97 , Calmar - CLS: 11.70 vs. ANET: 2.66 , Sterling - CLS: 15.26 vs. ANET: 4.05 , Treynor - CLS: 0.67 vs. ANET: 0.31 , Ulcer Index - CLS: 11.06% vs. ANET: 12.79%

Celestica vs Arista Networks Correlation

0.45 Average Correlation

Celestica and Arista Networks are moderately correlated over the past year. With a correlation of 0.45, these assets show moderate co-movement, offering some diversification when held together.

For portfolio construction, this moderate correlation offers some diversification benefit, though the assets still tend to move together during major market moves.

Metric	Value
Current (30-day)	0.64
Average (full period)	0.45
Minimum	0.22
Maximum	0.82

Correlation measures how closely two assets move together. Values near +1 indicate strong co-movement, near 0 indicates independence, and negative values indicate inverse movement.

Investment Comparison

If you invested $10,000 in each asset on April 14, 2025:

CLS $36,454.01 +264.5%

ANET $17,214.3 +72.1%

Difference: $19,239.71 (CLS ahead)

Celestica and Arista Networks: Risk Analysis

Celestica experienced its maximum drawdown of -29.2% from 2025-11-05 to 2026-03-06. It has not yet recovered to its previous peak.

Arista Networks experienced its maximum drawdown of -28.3% from 2025-10-29 to 2026-03-30. It has not yet recovered to its previous peak.

Smaller drawdowns and faster recoveries indicate lower downside risk and greater resilience during market stress.

Sharpe Ratio of CLS and ANET

CLS Sharpe Ratio

↑ 2.49

ANET Sharpe Ratio

↑ 1.27

Sharpe ratio measures return per unit of risk (volatility). A higher Sharpe indicates better risk-adjusted performance. CLS had a higher Sharpe (2.49 vs 1.27), indicating better risk-adjusted performance.

A Sharpe above 1.0 is generally considered good, above 2.0 is excellent. Negative Sharpe means the asset underperformed the risk-free rate. Calculated on each asset's full 365-day lookback of available prices and annualized using the asset calendar (365 for crypto, 252 trading days for equities/ETFs/metals).

Sortino Ratio of CLS and ANET

CLS Sortino Ratio

↑ 3.85

ANET Sortino Ratio

↑ 1.97

Sortino ratio measures return per unit of downside risk. Unlike Sharpe, it only counts downside deviation (returns below the target return). CLS had better downside-adjusted returns.

A higher Sortino is better. It's useful when upside volatility is common (crypto is the obvious example). Downside deviation: CLS 43.7% vs ANET 33.1%. Calculated on each asset's full 365-day lookback of available prices, using the daily risk-free rate as the target return, and annualized using the asset calendar (365 for crypto, 252 trading days for equities/ETFs/metals).

Calmar Ratio of CLS and ANET

CLS Calmar Ratio

↑ 11.70

ANET Calmar Ratio

↑ 2.66

Calmar ratio compares CAGR to maximum drawdown. Higher Calmar means more return per unit of worst drawdown. CLS posted the higher Calmar ratio.

Calmar is computed on each asset's full 365-day lookback and uses the max drawdown over that same window.

Sterling Ratio of CLS and ANET

CLS Sterling Ratio

↑ 15.26

ANET Sterling Ratio

↑ 4.05

Sterling ratio measures excess return per unit of average drawdown (typically drawdowns worse than 10%). CLS posted the higher Sterling ratio.

Sterling uses average drawdown events deeper than 10% and subtracts the risk-free rate to report excess return.

Treynor Ratio of CLS and ANET

CLS Treynor Ratio

↑ 0.67

ANET Treynor Ratio

↑ 0.31

Treynor ratio measures excess return per unit of market risk (beta) instead of total volatility. CLS posted the higher Treynor ratio.

Treynor uses beta vs the S&P 500 (SPY) on shared dates and the average 3-month Treasury rate as the risk-free rate.

Ulcer Index of CLS and ANET

CLS Ulcer Index

11.06%

ANET Ulcer Index

12.79%

Ulcer Index captures drawdown depth and duration. Lower Ulcer Index means less drawdown pain. CLS had the lower Ulcer Index (less drawdown pain).

Ulcer Index is computed from each asset's drawdown series over the full lookback window.

Tail Risk & Distribution Shape (1-Year): Celestica vs. Arista Networks

This section looks at the shape of daily returns, not just the average. Tail stats are computed per asset on its own daily series (crypto includes weekends). We use daily log returns $\ln\left(\frac{P_t}{P_{t-1}}\right)$ so multi-day moves add cleanly.

Definitions: Value at Risk (VaR), Expected Shortfall, skew, kurtosis, and fat tails.

Metric (1-Year)	CLS	ANET
5% VaR (daily log return)	-6.90%	-4.69%
5% Expected Shortfall (CVaR)	-9.39% (worst 13 days)	-6.59% (worst 13 days)
Skew	-0.34	0.24
Excess kurtosis	1.39	2.51
2σ tail days (down / up)	7 / 4	6 / 5
Worst day	-13.10% (2026-01-29)	-9.23% (2026-03-26)
Best day	+16.51% (2025-07-29)	+17.49% (2025-08-06)

Downside co-moves (2σ) — 1-Year

Computed on shared dates only (n=243). A “2σ downside move” means a shared-close log return more than 2 standard deviations below that asset’s own mean on this shared-date series. Dates below show simple returns (%) for readability.

When ANET has a big down day, CLS also does

33.3%

2 / 6 days

When CLS has a big down day, ANET also does

28.6%

2 / 7 days

Show downside tail dates

Dates below are shared-date observations. The “Date” is the period end (close). Tail thresholds are computed on log returns, but the table shows simple returns (%) for readability. Returns are computed from the previous shared close to this one (for example, Friday → Monday includes weekend moves).

Days when both CLS and ANET had a big down day (2σ)

Date (interval)	CLS	ANET
2025-12-12	-12.78%	-7.17%
2026-03-26	-9.54%	-9.23%

Days when CLS had a big down day

Date (interval)	CLS	ANET
2025-08-29	-8.28%	+0.23%
2025-11-13	-12.50%	-3.47%
2025-11-20	-9.66%	-4.18%
2025-12-12	-12.78%	-7.17%
2026-01-29	-13.10%	-1.33%
2026-03-26	-9.54%	-9.23%
2026-03-27 → 2026-03-30	-8.19%	-3.84%

Days when ANET had a big down day

Date (interval)	CLS	ANET
2025-05-29	-1.48%	-6.92%
2025-09-12	-1.62%	-8.92%
2025-11-05	+5.01%	-8.55%
2025-12-12	-12.78%	-7.17%
2026-02-04	-7.26%	-6.54%
2026-03-26	-9.54%	-9.23%

Read this as “how ugly the ugly days get”, not as a precise forecast. One-year samples are small, so tail estimates are inherently noisy.

Celestica vs Arista Networks Volatility (CLS vs ANET)

CLS Volatility

67.6%

±4.26% daily

ANET Volatility

51.3%

±3.23% daily

Typical daily swing

CLS

±4.26%

ANET

±3.23%

Celestica's annualized volatility of 67.6% means it typically moves ±4.26% on any given day.

Arista Networks's annualized volatility of 51.3% means it typically moves ±3.23% on any given day.

CLS's higher volatility means a wider path to returns — this can be attractive for tactical, shorter-term exposure, while ANET's smoother profile may better suit long-term allocators seeking steadier growth.

For comparison, the S&P 500 typically has 15-18% annualized volatility, translating to roughly ±1% daily moves. Higher volatility means larger potential gains but also larger potential losses.

Celestica vs Arista Networks Performance Over Time

Metric	CLS	ANET
30 Days	14.7%	1.7%
90 Days	-2.5%	-5.2%
180 Days	26.2%	-12.9%
1 Year	N/A	N/A

Shorter time frames can show different leaders as market conditions change. Consider your investment horizon when comparing performance.

Full Comparison of Celestica vs. Arista Networks (1-Year)

Metric	CLS	ANET
Total Return	+264.5%	+72.1%
Annualized Volatility	67.6%	51.3%
Sharpe Ratio	2.49	1.27
Sortino Ratio	3.85	1.97
Calmar Ratio	11.70	2.66
Sterling Ratio	15.26	4.05
Treynor Ratio	0.67	0.31
Ulcer Index	11.06%	12.79%
Max Drawdown	-29.2%	-28.3%
Avg Correlation to S&P 500	0.47	0.47
5% VaR (daily log return)	-6.90%	-4.69%
5% Expected Shortfall (CVaR)	-9.39%	-6.59%
Skew	-0.34	0.24
Excess kurtosis	1.39	2.51
2σ tail days (down / up)	7 / 4	6 / 5

Audit this calculation

Formulas, inputs, and conventions used to compute the metrics on this page.

Inputs & conventions

Shared window for pair metrics: 2025-04-14 → 2026-04-02 (last shared close).
Rolling correlation sample (shared closes): 214 rolling 30-day values (from 243 shared daily returns).
Annualization (days/year): CLS: 252 days/year; ANET: 252 days/year.
Risk-free rate: Uses the 3-month U.S. Treasury yield (FRED: DGS3MO), averaged over each asset’s window:

CLS: 4.17% over 2025-04-14 → 2026-04-10.

ANET: 4.17% over 2025-04-14 → 2026-04-02.
Volatility drag (rule of thumb): Estimated from annualized volatility (simple returns). For the log-return framing, see Log returns.

CLS: ≈ -22.8%/yr

ANET: ≈ -13.2%/yr
Data alignment: No forward fill. Correlation and tail co-moves are computed on shared closes only.
For cross-calendar pairs (e.g., crypto vs stocks), weekend/holiday moves roll into the next shared close.
Return conventions: Volatility/Sharpe/Sortino use simple daily returns. Tail-risk uses daily log returns for distribution stats (but tables show simple returns). Log returns.

Formulas

Daily simple return

r_t = \frac{P_t}{P_{t-1}} - 1

Volatility

\sigma_{ann} = \sigma(r_t)\sqrt{A}

Volatility drag (approx.)

\text{drag} \approx \tfrac{1}{2}\sigma_{ann}^2

Sharpe Ratio

S = \frac{A\,\bar{r} - r_f}{\sigma(r_t)\sqrt{A}}

Sortino Ratio

So = \frac{A\,\bar{r} - r_f}{\sqrt{\mathbb{E}[\min(0,\,r_t - r_f/A)^2]}\,\sqrt{A}}

Maximum Drawdown

MDD = \min_t\left(\frac{P_t}{\max_{s \le t} P_s} - 1\right)

Average Correlation

\rho = \frac{\operatorname{cov}(r^A,\,r^B)}{\sigma_A\,\sigma_B}

Log returns

\ell_t = \ln\left(\frac{P_t}{P_{t-1}}\right)

Notation

$P_t$: Price on day t.
$r_t$: Simple daily return.
$\ell_t$: Log daily return.
$\bar{r}$: Average daily return.
$\sigma(r_t)$: Standard deviation of daily returns.
$A$: Annualization factor (days/year).
$r_f$: Annual risk-free rate.

Celestica vs Arista Networks: Frequently Asked Questions

Which has higher volatility: CLS or ANET?

CLS showed higher volatility at 67.6% annualized, compared to 51.3% for ANET Over the past year. Higher volatility means larger price swings in both directions.

Does CLS provide diversification when held with ANET?

CLS and ANET are moderately correlated over the past year, with an average correlation of 0.45. This offers some diversification benefit, though they still tend to move together during major market moves.

How bad are the worst 5% days for CLS vs ANET?

Over the past year, CLS's 5% VaR was -6.90% and its 5% Expected Shortfall was -9.39% (worst 13 days). ANET's were -4.69% and -6.59% (worst 13 days).

Do CLS and ANET crash together on bad days?

On shared dates (n=243), when ANET has a 2σ down day, CLS also does 33.3% (2/6 days). In the other direction, when CLS has one, ANET also does 28.6% (2/7 days).

Which has better risk-adjusted returns: CLS or ANET?

CLS showed better risk-adjusted performance with a Sharpe ratio of 2.49 versus ANET's 1.27 Over the past year.

Can CLS and ANET be combined in a portfolio?

Yes, though allocation sizing matters. Their moderate correlation offers some diversification benefits. CLS's higher volatility (67.6%) means even small allocations can materially impact overall portfolio risk.

Explore our financial glossary