CLIX vs. FFLS

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CLIX (ProShares Long Online/Short Stores ETF) and FFLS (The Future Fund Long/Short ETF) are both Long-Short funds. CLIX is passively managed, while FFLS is actively managed. Over the past year, CLIX returned 12.94% vs -0.45% for FFLS. A 0.54 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CLIX charges 0.65%/yr vs 1.75%/yr for FFLS.

Performance

CLIX vs. FFLS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares Long Online/Short Stores ETF (CLIX) and The Future Fund Long/Short ETF (FFLS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CLIX achieves a -6.21% return, which is significantly lower than FFLS's -0.26% return.

CLIX

• 1D: -2.35%
• 1M: -6.73%
• YTD: -6.21%
• 6M: -6.37%
• 1Y: 12.94%
• 3Y*: 18.92%
• 5Y*: -6.40%
• 10Y*: —

FFLS

• 1D: -0.63%
• 1M: 2.89%
• YTD: -0.26%
• 6M: -0.66%
• 1Y: -0.45%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CLIX vs. FFLS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
CLIX ProShares Long Online/Short Stores ETF	-6.21%	32.81%	20.73%	10.39%
FFLS The Future Fund Long/Short ETF	-0.26%	7.49%	17.71%	2.03%

Correlation

The correlation between CLIX and FFLS is 0.41, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.41
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 22, 2023	0.54

The correlation between CLIX and FFLS shifts across timeframes, from 0.41 (1 year) to 0.54 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

CLIX vs. FFLS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CLIX	FFLS
Consumer Cyclical	94.8%	6.9%
Technology	3.6%	14.4%
Consumer Defensive	1.6%	1.6%
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	7.2%
Energy	-	4.8%
Financial Services	-	-4.2%
Healthcare	-	10.1%
Industrials	-	8.4%
Real Estate	-	2.6%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

CLIX vs. FFLS — Risk / Return Rank

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

CLIX

CLIX Risk / Return Rank: 18
CLIX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 19
CLIX Sortino Ratio Rank: 18
CLIX Omega Ratio Rank: 18
CLIX Calmar Ratio Rank: 17
CLIX Martin Ratio Rank: 18

FFLS

FFLS Risk / Return Rank: 8
FFLS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8
FFLS Sortino Ratio Rank: 8
FFLS Omega Ratio Rank: 7
FFLS Calmar Ratio Rank: 8
FFLS Martin Ratio Rank: 8

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.

CLIX vs. FFLS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares Long Online/Short Stores ETF (CLIX) and The Future Fund Long/Short ETF (FFLS). 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.

	CLIX	FFLS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.62	-0.05	+0.67
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.97	-0.01	+0.98
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.12	1.00	+0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.66	-0.04	+0.70
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.81	-0.09	+1.90
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CLIX vs. FFLS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CLIX Sharpe Ratio is 0.62, which is higher than the FFLS Sharpe Ratio of -0.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CLIX and FFLS, 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

	CLIX	FFLS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.62	-0.05	+0.67
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.24	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.17	0.80	-0.63

Drawdowns

CLIX vs. FFLS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CLIX drawdown since its inception was -73.21%, which is greater than FFLS's maximum drawdown of -11.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CLIX and FFLS.

Drawdown Indicators

	CLIX	FFLS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-73.21%	-11.05%	-62.16%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-19.57%	-11.05%	-8.52%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.18%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-68.22%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-44.59%	-4.96%	-39.63%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-34.70%	-3.09%	-31.61%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.15%	5.07%	+2.08%

Volatility

CLIX vs. FFLS - Volatility Comparison

ProShares Long Online/Short Stores ETF (CLIX) has a higher volatility of 5.08% compared to The Future Fund Long/Short ETF (FFLS) at 3.54%. This indicates that CLIX's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FFLS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CLIX	FFLS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.08%	3.54%	+1.54%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.59%	6.92%	+8.67%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.89%	8.94%	+11.95%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	26.94%	11.23%	+15.71%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.92%	11.23%	+14.69%

CLIX vs. FFLS - Expense Ratio Comparison

CLIX has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is lower than FFLS's 1.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

CLIX vs. FFLS - Dividend Comparison

CLIX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.57%, less than FFLS's 6.59% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
CLIX ProShares Long Online/Short Stores ETF	0.57%	0.46%	0.46%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	1.33%
FFLS The Future Fund Long/Short ETF	6.59%	6.58%	3.34%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CLIX and FFLS in my portfolio?

CLIX and FFLS have a correlation of 0.41, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CLIX or FFLS?

CLIX has higher volatility (5.08%) compared to FFLS (3.54%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CLIX dropped -73.21% vs FFLS's -11.05%.

Which ETF is better, CLIX or FFLS?

On 1-year performance, CLIX leads with 12.94% vs -0.45% for FFLS. On fees, CLIX is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, FFLS has been the lower-risk option at 3.54%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CLIX or FFLS?

Over the 1-year period, CLIX has performed better with a 12.94% return vs -0.45%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CLIX or FFLS?

CLIX is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 1.75% for FFLS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CLIX or FFLS?

FFLS has the higher dividend yield at 6.59%, compared with 0.57% for CLIX.

What is the main difference between CLIX and FFLS?

They also come from different issuers: ProShares and The Future Fund. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for CLIX and 1.75% for FFLS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CLIX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.62 vs -0.05), 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.