BAMO vs. CLSM

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

BAMO (Brookstone Opportunities ETF) and CLSM (Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BAMO is a Diversified Portfolio fund actively managed by Brookstone, while CLSM is a Tactical Allocation fund tracking the Actively Managed. BAMO is actively managed, while CLSM is passively managed. Over the past year, BAMO returned 14.64% vs 33.43% for CLSM. A 0.77 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BAMO charges 1.30%/yr vs 0.82%/yr for CLSM.

Performance

BAMO vs. CLSM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Brookstone Opportunities ETF (BAMO) 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, BAMO achieves a 6.34% return, which is significantly lower than CLSM's 19.63% return.

BAMO

• 1D: 0.49%
• 1M: 2.97%
• YTD: 6.34%
• 6M: 6.56%
• 1Y: 14.64%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CLSM

• 1D: -0.68%
• 1M: 7.03%
• YTD: 19.63%
• 6M: 19.45%
• 1Y: 33.43%
• 3Y*: 13.57%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BAMO vs. CLSM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
BAMO Brookstone Opportunities ETF	6.34%	9.16%	14.39%	7.75%
CLSM Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF	19.63%	15.32%	1.87%	6.34%

Correlation

The correlation between BAMO and CLSM is 0.85, 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	0.85
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 29, 2023	0.77

The correlation between BAMO and CLSM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.77 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

BAMO vs. CLSM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BAMO	CLSM
Technology	29.2%	51.8%
Financial Services	17.1%	0.1%
Industrials	11.4%	1.0%
Consumer Cyclical	10.6%	4.4%
Healthcare	10.4%	1.4%
Communication Services	7.8%	5.5%
Consumer Defensive	4.9%	34.8%
Energy	3.3%	0.2%
Basic Materials	2.6%	0.4%
Utilities	1.6%	0.5%
Real Estate	1.3%	0.0%

Return for Risk

BAMO vs. CLSM — Risk / Return Rank

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

BAMO

BAMO Risk / Return Rank: 70
BAMO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
BAMO Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
BAMO Omega Ratio Rank: 76
BAMO Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
BAMO Martin Ratio Rank: 69

CLSM

CLSM Risk / Return Rank: 81
CLSM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
CLSM Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
CLSM Omega Ratio Rank: 82
CLSM Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
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.

BAMO vs. CLSM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	BAMO	CLSM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.31	2.64	-0.33
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.41	3.50	-0.10
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.44	1.48	-0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.70	3.95	-1.25
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.57	16.33	-3.76
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BAMO vs. CLSM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BAMO Sharpe Ratio is 2.31, which is comparable to the CLSM Sharpe Ratio of 2.64. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BAMO 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

	BAMO	CLSM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.31	2.64	-0.33
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.50	0.34	+1.17

Drawdowns

BAMO vs. CLSM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BAMO drawdown since its inception was -12.72%, smaller than the maximum CLSM drawdown of -27.77%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BAMO and CLSM.

Drawdown Indicators

	BAMO	CLSM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-12.72%	-27.77%	+15.05%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.45%	-8.50%	+3.05%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-14.60%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.02%	-1.06%	+1.04%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.26%	-16.48%	+15.22%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.17%	2.05%	-0.88%

Volatility

BAMO vs. CLSM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Brookstone Opportunities ETF (BAMO) is 1.76%, while Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF (CLSM) has a volatility of 3.60%. This indicates that BAMO 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

	BAMO	CLSM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.76%	3.60%	-1.84%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.47%	10.57%	-5.10%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.37%	12.73%	-6.36%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.56%	12.47%	-2.91%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.56%	12.47%	-2.91%

BAMO vs. CLSM - Expense Ratio Comparison

BAMO has a 1.30% expense ratio, which is higher than CLSM's 0.82% expense ratio.

Dividends

BAMO vs. CLSM - Dividend Comparison

BAMO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.45%, more than CLSM's 0.75% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
BAMO Brookstone Opportunities ETF	1.45%	1.54%	1.58%	0.48%	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 BAMO and CLSM in my portfolio?

BAMO and CLSM have a correlation of 0.85, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BAMO or CLSM?

CLSM has higher volatility (3.60%) compared to BAMO (1.76%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BAMO dropped -12.72% vs CLSM's -27.77%.

Which ETF is better, BAMO or CLSM?

On 1-year performance, CLSM leads with 33.43% vs 14.64% for BAMO. On fees, CLSM is cheaper at 0.82% per year. On volatility, BAMO has been the lower-risk option at 1.76%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BAMO or CLSM?

Over the 1-year period, CLSM has performed better with a 33.43% return vs 14.64%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BAMO or CLSM?

CLSM is cheaper with a 0.82% expense ratio, compared with 1.30% for BAMO.

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

BAMO has the higher dividend yield at 1.45%, compared with 0.75% for CLSM.

What is the main difference between BAMO and CLSM?

BAMO is categorized as Diversified Portfolio, while CLSM is Tactical Allocation. They also come from different issuers: Brookstone and Cabana. Their fees differ too: 1.30% for BAMO and 0.82% for CLSM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CLSM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.64 vs 2.31), 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.