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

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

Over the past year, it depends: CLS led on total return (CLS +334.4% vs VRT +312.7%), but VRT had the higher Sharpe ratio (VRT 2.70 vs CLS 2.49). On risk, VRT was less volatile (VRT 58.0% vs CLS 67.6%), VRT had a smaller max drawdown (VRT -24.8% vs CLS -29.2%), and VRT had less severe losses on the worst 5% of days (Expected Shortfall of VRT -6.82% vs CLS -9.39%).

Written by Gale Finance Team

Reviewed by Sid Kalla CFA Charterholder

Quick answer

Which is a better investment: CLS or VRT?

Over the past year, results are mixed (+334.4% vs +312.7%).

Total Return

CLS WIN +334.4%

VRT +312.7%

Sharpe Ratio

CLS 2.49

VRT WIN 2.70

Annualized Volatility

CLS 67.6%

VRT WIN 58.0%

Max Drawdown

CLS -29.2%

VRT WIN -24.8%

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

CLS Total Return

↑ +334.4%

VRT Total Return

↑ +312.7%

Relative Performance of CLS vs VRT (Normalized to 100)

CLS VRT

Normalized to 100 at start date for comparison

Key Takeaways

Total Return: CLS delivered a +334.4% total return, while VRT returned +312.7% over the same period. CLS outperformed on total returns.
Risk-Adjusted Return (Sharpe Ratio): VRT had a higher Sharpe (2.70 vs 2.49), indicating better risk-adjusted performance.
Volatility (Annualized): CLS was more volatile, with 67.6% annualized volatility, versus 58.0% for VRT.
Maximum Drawdown: VRT's maximum drawdown was -24.8%, 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%; VRT's were -5.10% and -6.82%. VaR is the cutoff; Expected Shortfall is the average move on the worst days.
Skew & Kurtosis: Skew: CLS -0.34 vs VRT 0.75. Excess kurtosis: CLS 1.39 vs VRT 4.76. Negative skew leans downside; higher excess kurtosis means fatter tails.
Tail Days & Extremes: 2σ tail days (down/up): CLS 7/4, VRT 6/7. Worst day: CLS -13.10% (2026-01-29) vs VRT -9.73% (2025-12-12). Best day: CLS +16.51% (2025-07-29) vs VRT +24.49% (2026-02-11).
Risk ratios: Sortino - CLS: 3.85 vs. VRT: 4.86 , Calmar - CLS: 11.70 vs. VRT: 12.90 , Sterling - CLS: 15.26 vs. VRT: 16.81 , Treynor - CLS: 0.67 vs. VRT: 0.63 , Ulcer Index - CLS: 11.06% vs. VRT: 8.16%

Celestica vs Vertiv Holdings Correlation

0.56 Average Correlation

Celestica and Vertiv Holdings are moderately correlated over the past year. With a correlation of 0.56, 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)	0.88
Average (full period)	0.56
Minimum	0.25
Maximum	0.88

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 $43,435.95 +334.4%

VRT $41,273.43 +312.7%

Difference: $2,162.52 (CLS ahead)

Celestica and Vertiv Holdings: 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.

Vertiv Holdings experienced its maximum drawdown of -24.8% from 2025-10-29 to 2025-12-17. It took 54 days to recover.

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

Sharpe Ratio of CLS and VRT

CLS Sharpe Ratio

↑ 2.49

VRT Sharpe Ratio

↑ 2.70

Sharpe ratio measures return per unit of risk (volatility). A higher Sharpe indicates better risk-adjusted performance. VRT had a higher Sharpe (2.70 vs 2.49), 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 VRT

CLS Sortino Ratio

↑ 3.85

VRT Sortino Ratio

↑ 4.86

Sortino ratio measures return per unit of downside risk. Unlike Sharpe, it only counts downside deviation (returns below the target return). VRT 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 VRT 32.2%. 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 VRT

CLS Calmar Ratio

↑ 11.70

VRT Calmar Ratio

↑ 12.90

Calmar ratio compares CAGR to maximum drawdown. Higher Calmar means more return per unit of worst drawdown. VRT 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 VRT

CLS Sterling Ratio

↑ 15.26

VRT Sterling Ratio

↑ 16.81

Sterling ratio measures excess return per unit of average drawdown (typically drawdowns worse than 10%). VRT 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 VRT

CLS Treynor Ratio

↑ 0.67

VRT Treynor Ratio

↑ 0.63

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 VRT

CLS Ulcer Index

11.06%

VRT Ulcer Index

8.16%

Ulcer Index captures drawdown depth and duration. Lower Ulcer Index means less drawdown pain. VRT 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. Vertiv Holdings

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	VRT
5% VaR (daily log return)	-6.90%	-5.10%
5% Expected Shortfall (CVaR)	-9.39% (worst 13 days)	-6.82% (worst 13 days)
Skew	-0.34	0.75
Excess kurtosis	1.39	4.76
2σ tail days (down / up)	7 / 4	6 / 7
Worst day	-13.10% (2026-01-29)	-9.73% (2025-12-12)
Best day	+16.51% (2025-07-29)	+24.49% (2026-02-11)

Downside co-moves (2σ) — 1-Year

Computed on shared dates only (n=248). 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 VRT has a big down day, CLS also does

66.7%

4 / 6 days

When CLS has a big down day, VRT also does

57.1%

4 / 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 VRT had a big down day (2σ)

Date (interval)	CLS	VRT
2025-11-20	-9.66%	-6.47%
2025-12-12	-12.78%	-9.73%
2026-03-26	-9.54%	-8.60%
2026-03-27 → 2026-03-30	-8.19%	-6.71%

Days when CLS had a big down day

Date (interval)	CLS	VRT
2025-08-29	-8.28%	-4.98%
2025-11-13	-12.50%	-5.61%
2025-11-20	-9.66%	-6.47%
2025-12-12	-12.78%	-9.73%
2026-01-29	-13.10%	+0.69%
2026-03-26	-9.54%	-8.60%
2026-03-27 → 2026-03-30	-8.19%	-6.71%

Days when VRT had a big down day

Date (interval)	CLS	VRT
2025-04-17 → 2025-04-21	-4.11%	-7.70%
2025-11-20	-9.66%	-6.47%
2025-12-12	-12.78%	-9.73%
2025-12-17	-4.51%	-6.74%
2026-03-26	-9.54%	-8.60%
2026-03-27 → 2026-03-30	-8.19%	-6.71%

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 Vertiv Holdings Volatility (CLS vs VRT)

CLS Volatility

67.6%

±4.26% daily

VRT Volatility

58.0%

±3.65% daily

Typical daily swing

CLS

±4.26%

VRT

±3.65%

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

Vertiv Holdings's annualized volatility of 58.0% means it typically moves ±3.65% on any given day.

CLS's higher volatility means a wider path to returns — this can be attractive for tactical, shorter-term exposure, while VRT'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 Vertiv Holdings Performance Over Time

Metric	CLS	VRT
30 Days	32.2%	10%
90 Days	16.2%	80.4%
180 Days	44.1%	74.7%
1 Year	334.4%	312.7%

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

Full Comparison of Celestica vs. Vertiv Holdings (1-Year)

Metric	CLS	VRT
Total Return	+334.4%	+312.7%
Annualized Volatility	67.6%	58.0%
Sharpe Ratio	2.49	2.70
Sortino Ratio	3.85	4.86
Calmar Ratio	11.70	12.90
Sterling Ratio	15.26	16.81
Treynor Ratio	0.67	0.63
Ulcer Index	11.06%	8.16%
Max Drawdown	-29.2%	-24.8%
Avg Correlation to S&P 500	0.47	0.53
5% VaR (daily log return)	-6.90%	-5.10%
5% Expected Shortfall (CVaR)	-9.39%	-6.82%
Skew	-0.34	0.75
Excess kurtosis	1.39	4.76
2σ tail days (down / up)	7 / 4	6 / 7

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 → 2026-04-10 (last shared close).
Rolling correlation sample (shared closes): 219 rolling 30-day values (from 248 shared daily returns).
Annualization (days/year): CLS: 252 days/year; VRT: 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.

VRT: 4.17% over 2025-04-14 → 2026-04-10.
Volatility drag (rule of thumb): Estimated from annualized volatility (simple returns). For the log-return framing, see Log returns.

CLS: ≈ -22.8%/yr

VRT: ≈ -16.8%/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 Vertiv Holdings: Frequently Asked Questions

Which has higher volatility: CLS or VRT?

CLS showed higher volatility at 67.6% annualized, compared to 58.0% for VRT Over the past year. Higher volatility means larger price swings in both directions.

Does CLS provide diversification when held with VRT?

CLS and VRT are moderately correlated over the past year, with an average correlation of 0.56. 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 VRT?

Over the past year, CLS's 5% VaR was -6.90% and its 5% Expected Shortfall was -9.39% (worst 13 days). VRT's were -5.10% and -6.82% (worst 13 days).

Do CLS and VRT crash together on bad days?

On shared dates (n=248), when VRT has a 2σ down day, CLS also does 66.7% (4/6 days). In the other direction, when CLS has one, VRT also does 57.1% (4/7 days).

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

VRT showed better risk-adjusted performance with a Sharpe ratio of 2.70 versus CLS's 2.49 Over the past year.

Can CLS and VRT 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