BAMA vs. CLSM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BAMA (Brookstone Active ETF) and CLSM (Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BAMA is a Diversified Portfolio fund actively managed by Brookstone, while CLSM is a Tactical Allocation fund tracking the Actively Managed. BAMA is actively managed, while CLSM is passively managed. Over the past year, BAMA returned 20.45% vs 34.21% for CLSM. Their correlation of 0.82 suggests significant overlap in exposure. BAMA charges 1.15%/yr vs 0.82%/yr for CLSM.

Performance

BAMA vs. CLSM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Brookstone Active ETF (BAMA) 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, BAMA achieves a 8.76% return, which is significantly lower than CLSM's 20.45% return.

BAMA

• 1D: -0.63%
• 1M: 4.12%
• YTD: 8.76%
• 6M: 9.20%
• 1Y: 20.45%
• 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)

BAMA vs. CLSM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BAMA Brookstone Active ETF	8.76%	12.61%	14.99%	8.02%
CLSM Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF	20.45%	15.32%	1.87%	6.34%

Correlation

The correlation between BAMA and CLSM is 0.91, 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	0.91
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 29, 2023	0.82

The correlation between BAMA and CLSM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

BAMA vs. CLSM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BAMA	CLSM
Technology	36.8%	51.8%
Financial Services	13.7%	0.1%
Communication Services	11.3%	5.5%
Consumer Cyclical	9.5%	4.4%
Industrials	9.5%	1.0%
Healthcare	6.9%	1.4%
Consumer Defensive	3.5%	34.8%
Basic Materials	2.9%	0.4%
Energy	2.5%	0.2%
Utilities	1.9%	0.5%
Real Estate	1.6%	0.0%

Return for Risk

BAMA vs. CLSM — Risk / Return Rank

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

BAMA

BAMA Risk / Return Rank: 68
BAMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
BAMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 72
BAMA Omega Ratio Rank: 71
BAMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
BAMA Martin Ratio Rank: 70

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.

BAMA vs. CLSM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Brookstone Active ETF (BAMA) 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.

	BAMA	CLSM	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.24	2.71	-0.46
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.25	3.58	-0.34
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	1.50	-0.08
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.79	4.04	-1.25
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	12.82	16.72	-3.90
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BAMA vs. CLSM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BAMA Sharpe Ratio is 2.24, which is comparable to the CLSM Sharpe Ratio of 2.71. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BAMA 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

	BAMA	CLSM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.24	2.71	-0.46
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.67	0.35	+1.32

Drawdowns

BAMA vs. CLSM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BAMA drawdown since its inception was -12.27%, smaller than the maximum CLSM drawdown of -27.77%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BAMA and CLSM.

Drawdown Indicators

	BAMA	CLSM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-12.27%	-27.77%	+15.50%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.35%	-8.50%	+1.15%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-14.60%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.63%	-0.38%	-0.25%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.26%	-16.49%	+15.23%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.60%	2.05%	-0.45%

Volatility

BAMA vs. CLSM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Brookstone Active ETF (BAMA) is 3.16%, while Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF (CLSM) has a volatility of 3.58%. This indicates that BAMA 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

	BAMA	CLSM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.16%	3.58%	-0.42%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.71%	10.54%	-2.83%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.17%	12.70%	-3.53%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.22%	12.47%	-2.25%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.22%	12.47%	-2.25%

BAMA vs. CLSM - Expense Ratio Comparison

BAMA has a 1.15% expense ratio, which is higher than CLSM's 0.82% expense ratio.

Dividends

BAMA vs. CLSM - Dividend Comparison

BAMA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.31%, more than CLSM's 0.75% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
BAMA Brookstone Active ETF	1.31%	1.54%	1.49%	0.45%	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 BAMA and CLSM in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.91, BAMA and CLSM move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, BAMA or CLSM?

CLSM has higher volatility (3.58%) compared to BAMA (3.16%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BAMA dropped -12.27% vs CLSM's -27.77%.

Which ETF is better, BAMA or CLSM?

On 1-year performance, CLSM leads with 34.21% vs 20.45% for BAMA. On fees, CLSM is cheaper at 0.82% per year. On volatility, BAMA has been the lower-risk option at 3.16%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BAMA or CLSM?

Over the 1-year period, CLSM has performed better with a 34.21% return vs 20.45%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BAMA or CLSM?

CLSM is cheaper with a 0.82% expense ratio, compared with 1.15% for BAMA.

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

BAMA has the higher dividend yield at 1.31%, compared with 0.75% for CLSM.

What is the main difference between BAMA and CLSM?

BAMA is categorized as Diversified Portfolio, while CLSM is Tactical Allocation. They also come from different issuers: Brookstone and Cabana. Their fees differ too: 1.15% for BAMA and 0.82% for CLSM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CLSM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.71 vs 2.24), 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.