ARP vs. CLSM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ARP (Pmv Adaptive Risk Parity ETF) and CLSM (Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF) are both Tactical Allocation funds. ARP is actively managed, while CLSM is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, ARP returned 15.46%/yr vs 13.75%/yr for CLSM. A 0.66 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ARP charges 1.42%/yr vs 0.82%/yr for CLSM.

Performance

ARP vs. CLSM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Pmv Adaptive Risk Parity ETF (ARP) 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, ARP achieves a 11.60% return, which is significantly lower than CLSM's 20.45% return.

ARP

• 1D: -0.29%
• 1M: 2.94%
• YTD: 11.60%
• 6M: 12.32%
• 1Y: 27.77%
• 3Y*: 15.46%
• 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)

ARP vs. CLSM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
ARP Pmv Adaptive Risk Parity ETF	11.60%	18.33%	13.79%	3.66%	-0.57%
CLSM Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF	20.45%	15.32%	1.87%	3.78%	0.17%

Correlation

The correlation between ARP and CLSM is 0.75, 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	0.75
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.69
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 23, 2022	0.66

The correlation between ARP and CLSM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.66 to 0.75 - a consistent structural relationship.

ARP vs. CLSM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ARP	CLSM
Financial Services	22.7%	0.1%
Industrials	16.9%	1.0%
Technology	14.6%	51.8%
Consumer Cyclical	8.5%	4.4%
Healthcare	8.1%	1.4%
Basic Materials	7.8%	0.4%
Consumer Defensive	5.5%	34.8%
Energy	5.5%	0.2%
Communication Services	4.3%	5.5%
Utilities	3.4%	0.5%
Real Estate	2.7%	0.0%

Return for Risk

ARP vs. CLSM — Risk / Return Rank

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

ARP

ARP Risk / Return Rank: 60
ARP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
ARP Sortino Ratio Rank: 53
ARP Omega Ratio Rank: 71
ARP Calmar Ratio Rank: 56
ARP Martin Ratio Rank: 59

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.

ARP vs. CLSM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Pmv Adaptive Risk Parity ETF (ARP) 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.

	ARP	CLSM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.06	2.71	-0.64
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.57	3.58	-1.01
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.43	1.50	-0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.76	4.04	-1.29
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.44	16.72	-6.28
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ARP vs. CLSM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ARP Sharpe Ratio is 2.06, which is comparable to the CLSM Sharpe Ratio of 2.71. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ARP 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

	ARP	CLSM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.06	2.71	-0.64
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.36	0.35	+1.01

Drawdowns

ARP vs. CLSM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ARP drawdown since its inception was -10.13%, smaller than the maximum CLSM drawdown of -27.77%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ARP and CLSM.

Drawdown Indicators

	ARP	CLSM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-10.13%	-27.77%	+17.64%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.13%	-8.50%	-1.63%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-10.13%	-14.60%	+4.47%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.29%	-0.38%	+0.09%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.81%	-16.49%	+14.68%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.67%	2.05%	+0.62%

Volatility

ARP vs. CLSM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Pmv Adaptive Risk Parity ETF (ARP) is 2.95%, while Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF (CLSM) has a volatility of 3.58%. This indicates that ARP 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.

Volatility by Period

	ARP	CLSM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.95%	3.58%	-0.63%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.70%	10.54%	+1.16%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.53%	12.70%	+0.83%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.06%	12.47%	-2.41%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.06%	12.47%	-2.41%

ARP vs. CLSM - Expense Ratio Comparison

ARP has a 1.42% expense ratio, which is higher than CLSM's 0.82% expense ratio.

Dividends

ARP vs. CLSM - Dividend Comparison

ARP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.86%, more than CLSM's 0.75% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
ARP Pmv Adaptive Risk Parity ETF	5.86%	6.54%	5.29%	2.67%	0.06%	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 ARP and CLSM in my portfolio?

ARP and CLSM have a correlation of 0.75, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ARP or CLSM?

CLSM has higher volatility (3.58%) compared to ARP (2.95%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ARP dropped -10.13% vs CLSM's -27.77%.

Which ETF is better, ARP or CLSM?

On 3-year performance, ARP leads with 15.46% vs 13.75% for CLSM. On fees, CLSM is cheaper at 0.82% per year. On volatility, ARP has been the lower-risk option at 2.95%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ARP or CLSM?

Over the 3-year period, ARP has performed better with a 15.46% return vs 13.75%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ARP or CLSM?

CLSM is cheaper with a 0.82% expense ratio, compared with 1.42% for ARP.

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

ARP has the higher dividend yield at 5.86%, compared with 0.75% for CLSM.

What is the main difference between ARP and CLSM?

They also come from different issuers: PMV and Cabana. Their fees differ too: 1.42% for ARP and 0.82% for CLSM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CLSM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.71 vs 2.06), 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.