BC vs MAT: Correlation
Measured on weekly returns over the past three years, Brunswick Corporation (BC) and Mattel, Inc. (MAT) carry a correlation of 0.47, a moderate link.
Data as of 2026-08-27 · refreshed every trading day · weekly returns · methodology
How correlated are BC and MAT?
Over the past 3 years, BC and MAT moved with a correlation of 0.47, which is moderate. Little has changed lately, as the 1-year reading of 0.41 lands near the 3-year figure. Over 5 years the correlation is 0.50, and the annualized covariance of weekly returns is 577.0 %².
Within BC's tracked universe of 58 assets, MAT comes in at #47 by 3-year correlation. The last year tells two different stories: BC led by 41.2 percentage points, +21.7% for BC against -19.5% for MAT.
How is this computed?
Pearson correlation on weekly returns: ρ(A,B) = cov(rA, rB) / (σA · σB), over windows of 52, 156 and 260 weeks. Covariance is annualized (×52) and expressed in %². Full definitions on the methodology page.
BC vs MAT: side by side
| BC (Brunswick Corporation) | MAT (Mattel, Inc.) | |
|---|---|---|
| 1-year return | +21.7% | -19.5% |
| 5-year return | -15.3% | -31.2% |
| Volatility (ann.) | 35.8% | 34.0% |
| Beta vs S&P 500 | 1.22 | 0.87 |
| Max drawdown (3Y) | -56.5% | -41.5% |
| Market cap | $5.0B | $4.3B |
| P/E (trailing) | – | 11.1 |
| Dividend yield | 2.18% | 0.00% |
| Sector / category | US Listed | US Listed |
Year-by-year returns
| Year | BC | MAT |
|---|---|---|
| 2022 | -27.1% | -17.3% |
| 2023 | +36.9% | +5.8% |
| 2024 | -31.8% | -6.1% |
| 2025 | +18.1% | +11.9% |
| 2026 | +6.2% | -24.8% |
Calendar-year price returns; the current year is year-to-date as of the data date above.
Are BC and MAT good diversifiers for each other?
Reasonably. At 0.47, BC and MAT keep a meaningful degree of independence, and combining them has historically reduced portfolio volatility.
FAQ
What is the correlation between BC and MAT?
As of 2026-08-27, the correlation of weekly returns between BC and MAT is 0.47 over 3 years, 0.41 over 1 year and 0.50 over 5 years.
Is MAT a good diversifier for BC?
Reasonably. At 0.47, BC and MAT keep a meaningful degree of independence, and combining them has historically reduced portfolio volatility.
What does a correlation of 0.47 mean?
On the −1 to +1 scale, 0.47 describes how much the two returns move together: +1 is lockstep, 0 is independence, negative values mean opposite directions. It says nothing about which performed better.
Use this data
$ curl https://www.pairbook.io/api/v1/pairs/bc-vs-mat.json
Markdown for the live badge, attribution link included:
[](https://www.pairbook.io/pair/bc-vs-mat/)
Free with attribution; caching and terms are described in the API documentation.
Related comparisons
Hubs: BC correlations · MAT correlations
