AOM vs. CLSM
AOM (iShares Core Moderate Allocation ETF) and CLSM (Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - AOM is a Diversified Portfolio fund tracking the S&P Target Risk Moderate, while CLSM is a Tactical Allocation fund tracking the Actively Managed. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, AOM returned 10.58%/yr vs 13.32%/yr for CLSM. A 0.69 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. AOM charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.82%/yr for CLSM.
Performance
AOM vs. CLSM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, AOM achieves a 4.39% return, which is significantly lower than CLSM's 16.60% return.
AOM
- 1D
- -0.76%
- 1M
- 0.20%
- YTD
- 4.39%
- 6M
- 4.21%
- 1Y
- 12.96%
- 3Y*
- 10.58%
- 5Y*
- 4.63%
- 10Y*
- 6.31%
CLSM
- 1D
- -1.97%
- 1M
- -0.30%
- YTD
- 16.60%
- 6M
- 15.06%
- 1Y
- 29.00%
- 3Y*
- 13.32%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
AOM vs. CLSM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AOM iShares Core Moderate Allocation ETF | 4.39% | 13.28% | 7.95% | 12.38% | -14.54% | 1.44% |
CLSM Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF | 16.60% | 15.32% | 1.87% | 3.78% | -23.23% | 8.22% |
Correlation
The correlation between AOM and CLSM is 0.83, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.83 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.74 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 13, 2021 | 0.69 |
The correlation between AOM and CLSM shifts across timeframes, from 0.69 (all time) to 0.83 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
AOM vs. CLSM — Risk / Return Rank
AOM
CLSM
AOM vs. CLSM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Core Moderate Allocation ETF (AOM) 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.
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.
| AOM | CLSM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.22 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.06 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.35 | 1.38 | -0.04 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.55 | 3.43 | -0.88 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 10.96 | 13.40 | -2.44 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
AOM vs. CLSM - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum AOM drawdown since its inception was -19.96%, smaller than the maximum CLSM drawdown of -27.77%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AOM and CLSM.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| AOM | CLSM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -19.96% | -27.77% | +7.81% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -5.11% | -8.50% | +3.39% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -6.85% | -14.60% | +7.75% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -19.96% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -19.96% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.04% | -3.57% | +2.53% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.69% | -16.34% | +13.65% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.19% | 2.17% | -0.98% |
Volatility
AOM vs. CLSM - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares Core Moderate Allocation ETF (AOM) is 2.78%, while Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF (CLSM) has a volatility of 6.46%. This indicates that AOM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CLSM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| AOM | CLSM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.78% | 6.46% | -3.68% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 5.70% | 12.06% | -6.36% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 6.94% | 13.93% | -6.99% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 8.21% | 12.70% | -4.49% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 7.94% | 12.70% | -4.76% |
AOM vs. CLSM - Expense Ratio Comparison
AOM has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than CLSM's 0.82% expense ratio.
Dividends
AOM vs. CLSM - Dividend Comparison
AOM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.00%, more than CLSM's 0.77% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AOM iShares Core Moderate Allocation ETF | 3.00% | 2.98% | 3.10% | 2.79% | 2.27% | 1.56% | 2.02% | 2.66% | 2.53% | 3.31% | 2.14% | 1.98% |
CLSM Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF | 0.77% | 0.90% | 2.13% | 2.58% | 3.17% | 0.59% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
AOM and CLSM have a correlation of 0.83, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
CLSM has higher volatility (6.46%) compared to AOM (2.78%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AOM dropped -19.96% vs CLSM's -27.77%.
On 3-year performance, CLSM leads with 13.32% vs 10.58% for AOM. On fees, AOM is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, AOM has been the lower-risk option at 2.78%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 3-year period, CLSM has performed better with a 13.32% return vs 10.58%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
AOM is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.82% for CLSM.
AOM has the higher dividend yield at 3.00%, compared with 0.77% for CLSM.
AOM is categorized as Diversified Portfolio, while CLSM is Tactical Allocation. AOM tracks S&P Target Risk Moderate, while CLSM tracks Actively Managed. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Cabana. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for AOM and 0.82% for CLSM.
CLSM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.09 vs 1.88), 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.
Find the right allocation for AOM and CLSM
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer