ALLW vs. CLSM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ALLW (SPDR Bridgewater All Weather ETF) and CLSM (Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF) are both Tactical Allocation funds. ALLW is actively managed, while CLSM is passively managed. Over the past year, ALLW returned 23.78% vs 34.21% for CLSM. A 0.63 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ALLW charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.82%/yr for CLSM.

Performance

ALLW vs. CLSM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SPDR Bridgewater All Weather ETF (ALLW) and Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF (CLSM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ALLW achieves a 9.20% return, which is significantly lower than CLSM's 20.45% return.

ALLW

• 1D: -0.76%
• 1M: 0.91%
• YTD: 9.20%
• 6M: 8.47%
• 1Y: 23.78%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CLSM

• 1D: -0.38%
• 1M: 9.23%
• YTD: 20.45%
• 6M: 20.19%
• 1Y: 34.21%
• 3Y*: 13.75%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

ALLW vs. CLSM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
ALLW SPDR Bridgewater All Weather ETF	9.20%	15.04%
CLSM Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF	20.45%	16.06%

Correlation

The correlation between ALLW and CLSM is 0.63, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.63
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 7, 2025	0.63

The correlation between ALLW and CLSM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.63 to 0.63 - a consistent structural relationship.

ALLW vs. CLSM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ALLW	CLSM
Technology	26.3%	51.8%
Financial Services	15.8%	0.1%
Consumer Cyclical	11.0%	4.4%
Communication Services	9.7%	5.5%
Industrials	9.2%	1.0%
Healthcare	8.2%	1.4%
Consumer Defensive	5.9%	34.8%
Energy	4.9%	0.2%
Basic Materials	4.6%	0.4%
Utilities	2.8%	0.5%
Real Estate	1.8%	0.0%

Return for Risk

ALLW vs. CLSM — Risk / Return Rank

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

ALLW

ALLW Risk / Return Rank: 67
ALLW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
ALLW Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
ALLW Omega Ratio Rank: 67
ALLW Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
ALLW Martin Ratio Rank: 73

CLSM

CLSM Risk / Return Rank: 82
CLSM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
CLSM Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
CLSM Omega Ratio Rank: 83
CLSM Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
CLSM Martin Ratio Rank: 83

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. CLSM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SPDR Bridgewater All Weather ETF (ALLW) and Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF (CLSM). 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.

	ALLW	CLSM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.27	2.71	-0.44
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.05	3.58	-0.53
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.41	1.50	-0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.30	4.04	-0.74
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.01	16.72	-2.71
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ALLW vs. CLSM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ALLW Sharpe Ratio is 2.27, which is comparable to the CLSM Sharpe Ratio of 2.71. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ALLW and CLSM, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	ALLW	CLSM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.27	2.71	-0.44
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.62	0.35	+1.27

Drawdowns

ALLW vs. CLSM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ALLW drawdown since its inception was -8.78%, smaller than the maximum CLSM drawdown of -27.77%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ALLW and CLSM.

Drawdown Indicators

	ALLW	CLSM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-8.78%	-27.77%	+18.99%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.23%	-8.50%	+1.27%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-14.60%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.79%	-0.38%	-0.41%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.20%	-16.49%	+15.29%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.70%	2.05%	-0.35%

Volatility

ALLW vs. CLSM - Volatility Comparison

SPDR Bridgewater All Weather ETF (ALLW) and Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF (CLSM) have volatilities of 3.43% and 3.58%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ALLW	CLSM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.43%	3.58%	-0.15%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.71%	10.54%	-1.83%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.52%	12.70%	-2.18%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.54%	12.47%	+0.07%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.54%	12.47%	+0.07%

ALLW vs. CLSM - Expense Ratio Comparison

ALLW has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than CLSM's 0.82% expense ratio.

Dividends

ALLW vs. CLSM - Dividend Comparison

ALLW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.28%, more than CLSM's 0.75% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
ALLW SPDR Bridgewater All Weather ETF	4.28%	4.67%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
CLSM Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF	0.75%	0.90%	2.13%	2.58%	3.17%	0.59%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ALLW and CLSM in my portfolio?

ALLW and CLSM have a correlation of 0.63, 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 CLSM?

CLSM has higher volatility (3.58%) compared to ALLW (3.43%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ALLW dropped -8.78% vs CLSM's -27.77%.

Which ETF is better, ALLW or CLSM?

On 1-year performance, CLSM leads with 34.21% vs 23.78% for ALLW. On fees, CLSM is cheaper at 0.82% per year. On volatility, ALLW has been the lower-risk option at 3.43%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ALLW or CLSM?

Over the 1-year period, CLSM has performed better with a 34.21% return vs 23.78%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ALLW or CLSM?

CLSM is cheaper with a 0.82% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for ALLW.

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

ALLW has the higher dividend yield at 4.28%, compared with 0.75% for CLSM.

What is the main difference between ALLW and CLSM?

They also come from different issuers: State Street and Cabana. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for ALLW and 0.82% for CLSM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CLSM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.71 vs 2.27), 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.