COST vs GFL: Correlation
Costco (COST) and GFL Environmental Inc. Subordinate voting shares, no par (GFL) show a moderate relationship: their 3-year correlation of weekly returns is 0.37.
Data as of 2026-08-27 · refreshed every trading day · weekly returns · methodology
How correlated are COST and GFL?
On 3 years of weekly data the COST/GFL correlation comes out at 0.37, moderate. Little has changed lately, as the 1-year reading of 0.30 lands near the 3-year figure. The 5-year figure is 0.40, and annualized covariance runs at 204.7 %².
Within COST's tracked universe of 33 assets, GFL comes in at #15 by 3-year correlation. The last year tells two different stories: COST led by 16.3 percentage points, -1.0% for COST against -17.3% for GFL.
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.
COST vs GFL: side by side
| COST (Costco) | GFL (GFL Environmental Inc. Subordinate voting shares, no par) | |
|---|---|---|
| 1-year return | -1.0% | -17.3% |
| 5-year return | +116.3% | +17.2% |
| Volatility (ann.) | 19.8% | 27.9% |
| Beta vs S&P 500 | 0.45 | 0.47 |
| Max drawdown (3Y) | -20.7% | -34.9% |
| Market cap | $414.5B | $14.8B |
| P/E (trailing) | 48.1 | – |
| Dividend yield | 0.56% | 0.20% |
| Sector / category | Consumer Staples | US Listed |
Year-by-year returns
| Year | COST | GFL |
|---|---|---|
| 2022 | -19.0% | -22.6% |
| 2023 | +49.0% | +18.2% |
| 2024 | +39.6% | +29.3% |
| 2025 | -5.4% | -3.5% |
| 2026 | +8.9% | -4.4% |
Calendar-year price returns; the current year is year-to-date as of the data date above.
Are COST and GFL good diversifiers for each other?
Reasonably. At 0.37, COST and GFL keep a meaningful degree of independence, and combining them has historically reduced portfolio volatility.
FAQ
What is the correlation between COST and GFL?
Using weekly returns as of 2026-08-27: 0.37 over 3 years, with 0.30 over the last year and 0.40 over 5 years.
Is GFL a good diversifier for COST?
Reasonably. At 0.37, COST and GFL keep a meaningful degree of independence, and combining them has historically reduced portfolio volatility.
What does a correlation of 0.37 mean?
A reading of 0.37 sits on a scale from −1 (opposite moves) through 0 (unrelated) to +1 (identical moves). Correlation captures direction, not magnitude or performance.
Use this data
$ curl https://www.pairbook.io/api/v1/pairs/cost-vs-gfl.json
Drop this badge in a README or notebook; it updates with the data:
[](https://www.pairbook.io/pair/cost-vs-gfl/)
Free with attribution; caching and terms are described in the API documentation.
Related comparisons
Hubs: COST correlations · GFL correlations
