CLCG vs. BIBL

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

CLCG (Crossmark Large Cap Growth ETF) and BIBL (Inspire 100 ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. CLCG is actively managed, while BIBL is passively managed. A 0.62 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CLCG charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for BIBL.

Performance

CLCG vs. BIBL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Crossmark Large Cap Growth ETF (CLCG) and Inspire 100 ETF (BIBL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CLCG achieves a 4.16% return, which is significantly lower than BIBL's 24.90% return.

CLCG

• 1D: -0.38%
• 1M: -2.85%
• YTD: 4.16%
• 6M: 2.34%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BIBL

• 1D: 0.27%
• 1M: 4.70%
• YTD: 24.90%
• 6M: 23.10%
• 1Y: 38.99%
• 3Y*: 22.52%
• 5Y*: 10.29%
• 10Y*: —

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

CLCG vs. BIBL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CLCG Crossmark Large Cap Growth ETF	4.16%	8.42%
BIBL Inspire 100 ETF	24.90%	7.30%

Correlation

The correlation between CLCG and BIBL is 0.62, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 23, 2025	0.62

Return for Risk

CLCG vs. BIBL — Risk / Return Rank

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

CLCG

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

BIBL

BIBL Risk / Return Rank: 84
BIBL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
BIBL Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
BIBL Omega Ratio Rank: 78
BIBL Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
BIBL Martin Ratio Rank: 90

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.

CLCG vs. BIBL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Crossmark Large Cap Growth ETF (CLCG) and Inspire 100 ETF (BIBL). 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.

	CLCG	BIBL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	2.39	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	3.17	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.41	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	4.38	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	18.61	—

Drawdowns

CLCG vs. BIBL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CLCG drawdown since its inception was -16.32%, smaller than the maximum BIBL drawdown of -36.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CLCG and BIBL.

Drawdown Indicators

	CLCG	BIBL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.32%	-36.12%	+19.80%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-8.94%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-20.60%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-30.85%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.61%	-1.92%	-3.69%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.84%	-7.00%	+3.16%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	2.10%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	CLCG	BIBL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	6.81%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	13.65%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.66%	16.44%	+1.22%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.66%	19.76%	-2.10%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.66%	21.11%	-3.45%

CLCG vs. BIBL - Expense Ratio Comparison

CLCG has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than BIBL's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

CLCG vs. BIBL - Dividend Comparison

CLCG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.06%, less than BIBL's 0.94% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
BIBL Inspire 100 ETF	0.94%	1.01%	0.92%	1.02%	0.98%	17.87%	1.67%	1.30%	1.49%	0.31%
CLCG Crossmark Large Cap Growth ETF	0.06%	0.07%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CLCG and BIBL in my portfolio?

CLCG and BIBL have a correlation of 0.62, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, CLCG or BIBL?

On fees, BIBL is cheaper at 0.35% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CLCG or BIBL?

BIBL is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for CLCG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CLCG or BIBL?

BIBL has the higher dividend yield at 0.94%, compared with 0.06% for CLCG.

What is the main difference between CLCG and BIBL?

They also come from different issuers: Crossmark and Inspire. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for CLCG and 0.35% for BIBL.