BFAP vs. CSHP

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BFAP (FT Vest Bitcoin Strategy Floor15 ETF - April) and CSHP (iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BFAP is a Cryptocurrency fund actively managed by First Trust, while CSHP is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by iShares. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, BFAP returned -24.44% vs 3.96% for CSHP. At a correlation of -0.08, they often move in opposite directions. BFAP charges 0.90%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for CSHP.

Performance

BFAP vs. CSHP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Vest Bitcoin Strategy Floor15 ETF - April (BFAP) and iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF (CSHP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BFAP achieves a -20.89% return, which is significantly lower than CSHP's 1.63% return.

BFAP

• 1D: -1.05%
• 1M: -7.01%
• YTD: -20.89%
• 6M: -23.66%
• 1Y: -24.44%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CSHP

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 0.27%
• YTD: 1.63%
• 6M: 1.93%
• 1Y: 3.96%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

BFAP vs. CSHP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BFAP FT Vest Bitcoin Strategy Floor15 ETF - April	-20.89%	8.90%
CSHP iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF	1.63%	3.11%

Correlation

The correlation between BFAP and CSHP is -0.07, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.07
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 7, 2025	-0.08

Return for Risk

BFAP vs. CSHP — Risk / Return Rank

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

BFAP

BFAP Risk / Return Rank: 1
BFAP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1
BFAP Sortino Ratio Rank: 1
BFAP Omega Ratio Rank: 1
BFAP Calmar Ratio Rank: 2
BFAP Martin Ratio Rank: 1

CSHP

CSHP Risk / Return Rank: 100
CSHP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
CSHP Sortino Ratio Rank: 100
CSHP Omega Ratio Rank: 100
CSHP Calmar Ratio Rank: 100
CSHP Martin Ratio Rank: 100

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.

BFAP vs. CSHP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Vest Bitcoin Strategy Floor15 ETF - April (BFAP) and iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF (CSHP). 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.

	BFAP	CSHP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-1.15	11.91	-13.06
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-1.58	31.26	-32.83
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.81	7.44	-6.63
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.79	65.71	-66.49
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.45	432.16	-433.61
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BFAP vs. CSHP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BFAP Sharpe Ratio is -1.15, which is lower than the CSHP Sharpe Ratio of 11.91. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BFAP and CSHP, 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

	BFAP	CSHP	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-1.15	11.91	-13.06
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.59	10.75	-11.34

Drawdowns

BFAP vs. CSHP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BFAP drawdown since its inception was -31.25%, which is greater than CSHP's maximum drawdown of -0.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BFAP and CSHP.

Drawdown Indicators

	BFAP	CSHP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-31.25%	-0.08%	-31.17%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-31.25%	-0.06%	-31.19%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-31.25%	0.00%	-31.25%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.77%	-0.00%	-10.77%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	16.89%	0.01%	+16.88%

Volatility

BFAP vs. CSHP - Volatility Comparison

FT Vest Bitcoin Strategy Floor15 ETF - April (BFAP) has a higher volatility of 3.59% compared to iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF (CSHP) at 0.07%. This indicates that BFAP's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CSHP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BFAP	CSHP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.59%	0.07%	+3.52%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.66%	0.24%	+17.42%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	21.26%	0.33%	+20.93%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.57%	0.40%	+20.17%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.57%	0.40%	+20.17%

BFAP vs. CSHP - Expense Ratio Comparison

BFAP has a 0.90% expense ratio, which is higher than CSHP's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

BFAP vs. CSHP - Dividend Comparison

BFAP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 23.98%, more than CSHP's 3.92% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
BFAP FT Vest Bitcoin Strategy Floor15 ETF - April	23.98%	18.97%	0.00%
CSHP iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF	3.92%	5.39%	1.96%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BFAP and CSHP in my portfolio?

BFAP and CSHP have a correlation of -0.07, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BFAP or CSHP?

BFAP has higher volatility (3.59%) compared to CSHP (0.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BFAP dropped -31.25% vs CSHP's -0.08%.

Which ETF is better, BFAP or CSHP?

On 1-year performance, CSHP leads with 3.96% vs -24.44% for BFAP. On fees, CSHP is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, CSHP has been the lower-risk option at 0.07%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BFAP or CSHP?

Over the 1-year period, CSHP has performed better with a 3.96% return vs -24.44%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BFAP or CSHP?

CSHP is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for BFAP.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BFAP or CSHP?

BFAP has the higher dividend yield at 23.98%, compared with 3.92% for CSHP.

What is the main difference between BFAP and CSHP?

BFAP is categorized as Cryptocurrency, while CSHP is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.90% for BFAP and 0.20% for CSHP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CSHP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (11.91 vs -1.15), 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.