ALLW vs. CLSE

Last updated Jun 13, 2026

ALLW (State Street Bridgewater All Weather ETF) and CLSE (Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ALLW is a Tactical Allocation fund actively managed by State Street, while CLSE is a Long-Short fund actively managed by Convergence Investment Partners. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, ALLW returned 19.20% vs 50.84% for CLSE. At a 0.41 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ALLW charges 0.85%/yr vs 1.56%/yr for CLSE.

Performance

ALLW vs. CLSE - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in State Street Bridgewater All Weather ETF (ALLW) and Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF (CLSE). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ALLW achieves a 7.24% return, which is significantly lower than CLSE's 25.17% return.

ALLW

• 1D: 0.10%
• 1M: -2.53%
• YTD: 7.24%
• 6M: 7.64%
• 1Y: 19.20%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CLSE

• 1D: 1.03%
• 1M: 3.04%
• YTD: 25.17%
• 6M: 26.89%
• 1Y: 50.84%
• 3Y*: 31.97%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ALLW vs. CLSE - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
ALLW State Street Bridgewater All Weather ETF	7.24%	15.44%
CLSE Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF	25.17%	24.46%

Correlation

The correlation between ALLW and CLSE is 0.41, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.41
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 6, 2025	0.42

ALLW vs. CLSE - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ALLW	CLSE
Technology	26.3%	36.0%
Financial Services	15.8%	-3.3%
Consumer Cyclical	11.0%	6.3%
Communication Services	9.7%	6.2%
Industrials	9.2%	2.1%
Healthcare	8.2%	6.1%
Consumer Defensive	5.9%	0.6%
Energy	4.9%	1.9%
Basic Materials	4.6%	1.4%
Utilities	2.8%	1.7%
Real Estate	1.8%	1.6%

Return for Risk

ALLW vs. CLSE — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

ALLW

ALLW Risk / Return Rank: 62
ALLW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
ALLW Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
ALLW Omega Ratio Rank: 62
ALLW Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
ALLW Martin Ratio Rank: 68

CLSE

CLSE Risk / Return Rank: 96
CLSE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 96
CLSE Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
CLSE Omega Ratio Rank: 95
CLSE Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
CLSE Martin Ratio Rank: 97

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

ALLW vs. CLSE - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for State Street Bridgewater All Weather ETF (ALLW) and Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF (CLSE). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	ALLW	CLSE	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.77	3.76	-1.99
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.38	5.04	-2.66
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.66	-0.33
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.67	10.54	-7.87
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.87	38.42	-27.55

ALLW vs. CLSE - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ALLW Sharpe Ratio is 1.77, which is lower than the CLSE Sharpe Ratio of 3.76. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ALLW and CLSE, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

ALLW vs. CLSE - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ALLW drawdown since its inception was -8.78%, smaller than the maximum CLSE drawdown of -16.45%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ALLW and CLSE.

Drawdown Indicators

	ALLW	CLSE	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-8.78%	-16.45%	+7.67%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.23%	-4.85%	-2.38%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-16.45%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.58%	-0.47%	-2.11%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.23%	-3.58%	+2.35%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.77%	1.33%	+0.44%

Volatility

ALLW vs. CLSE - Volatility Comparison

State Street Bridgewater All Weather ETF (ALLW) has a higher volatility of 4.39% compared to Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF (CLSE) at 4.10%. This indicates that ALLW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CLSE based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ALLW	CLSE	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.39%	4.10%	+0.29%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.23%	10.63%	-1.40%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.93%	13.59%	-2.66%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.72%	13.93%	-1.21%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.72%	13.93%	-1.21%

ALLW vs. CLSE - Expense Ratio Comparison

ALLW has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is lower than CLSE's 1.56% expense ratio.

Dividends

ALLW vs. CLSE - Dividend Comparison

ALLW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.36%, more than CLSE's 0.76% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
ALLW State Street Bridgewater All Weather ETF	4.36%	4.67%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
CLSE Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF	0.76%	0.95%	0.93%	1.21%	0.85%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ALLW and CLSE in my portfolio?

ALLW and CLSE have a correlation of 0.41, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ALLW or CLSE?

ALLW has higher volatility (4.39%) compared to CLSE (4.10%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ALLW dropped -8.78% vs CLSE's -16.45%.

Which ETF is better, ALLW or CLSE?

On 1-year performance, CLSE leads with 50.84% vs 19.20% for ALLW. On fees, ALLW is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, CLSE has been the lower-risk option at 4.10%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ALLW or CLSE?

Over the 1-year period, CLSE has performed better with a 50.84% return vs 19.20%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ALLW or CLSE?

ALLW is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 1.56% for CLSE.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ALLW or CLSE?

ALLW has the higher dividend yield at 4.36%, compared with 0.76% for CLSE.

What is the main difference between ALLW and CLSE?

ALLW is categorized as Tactical Allocation, while CLSE is Long-Short. They also come from different issuers: State Street and Convergence Investment Partners. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for ALLW and 1.56% for CLSE.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CLSE currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.76 vs 1.77), 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.