CLSE vs. FFLS

Last updated Apr 1, 2026

Compare and contrast key facts about Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF (CLSE) and The Future Fund Long/Short ETF (FFLS).

CLSE and FFLS are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. CLSE is an actively managed fund by Convergence Investment Partners. It was launched on Feb 22, 2022. FFLS is an actively managed fund by The Future Fund. It was launched on Jun 20, 2023.

Performance

CLSE vs. FFLS - Performance Comparison

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

CLSE vs. FFLS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
CLSE Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF	2.96%	20.44%	35.54%	11.28%
FFLS The Future Fund Long/Short ETF	-5.65%	7.49%	17.71%	2.03%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CLSE achieves a 2.96% return, which is significantly higher than FFLS's -5.65% return.

CLSE

• 1D: 2.44%
• 1M: -1.02%
• YTD: 2.96%
• 6M: 9.11%
• 1Y: 31.47%
• 3Y*: 24.16%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FFLS

• 1D: 1.08%
• 1M: -2.66%
• YTD: -5.65%
• 6M: -8.08%
• 1Y: -0.01%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CLSE vs. FFLS - Expense Ratio Comparison

CLSE has a 1.56% expense ratio, which is lower than FFLS's 1.75% expense ratio.

FFLS

The Future Fund Long/Short ETF

CLSE

Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF

Return for Risk

CLSE vs. FFLS — Risk / Return Rank

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

CLSE

CLSE Risk / Return Rank: 94
CLSE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
CLSE Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
CLSE Omega Ratio Rank: 92
CLSE Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
CLSE Martin Ratio Rank: 97

FFLS

FFLS Risk / Return Rank: 11
FFLS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 12
FFLS Sortino Ratio Rank: 11
FFLS Omega Ratio Rank: 10
FFLS Calmar Ratio Rank: 12
FFLS Martin Ratio Rank: 11

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.

CLSE vs. FFLS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF (CLSE) 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.

	CLSE	FFLS	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.19	-0.00	+2.19
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.84	0.06	+2.78
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	1.01	+0.39
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.14	-0.02	+4.16
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	19.56	-0.06	+19.62
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CLSE vs. FFLS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CLSE Sharpe Ratio is 2.19, which is higher than the FFLS Sharpe Ratio of -0.00. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CLSE and FFLS, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CLSE	FFLS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.19	-0.00	+2.19
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.25	0.66	+0.58

Correlation

The correlation between CLSE and FFLS is 0.47, which is considered to be moderate. This suggests that the two assets have some degree of positive relationship in their price movements. Moderate correlation can be acceptable for portfolio diversification, offering a balance between risk and potential returns.

Dividends

CLSE vs. FFLS - Dividend Comparison

CLSE's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.92%, less than FFLS's 6.97% yield.

	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
CLSE Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF	0.92%	0.95%	0.93%	1.21%	0.85%
FFLS The Future Fund Long/Short ETF	6.97%	6.58%	3.34%	0.00%	0.00%

Drawdowns

CLSE vs. FFLS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CLSE drawdown since its inception was -16.45%, which is greater than FFLS's maximum drawdown of -11.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CLSE and FFLS.

Drawdown Indicators

	CLSE	FFLS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.45%	-11.05%	-5.40%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.88%	-11.05%	+3.17%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.53%	-10.09%	+7.56%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.73%	-2.86%	-0.87%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.67%	4.18%	-2.51%

Volatility

CLSE vs. FFLS - Volatility Comparison

Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF (CLSE) has a higher volatility of 5.68% compared to The Future Fund Long/Short ETF (FFLS) at 3.06%. This indicates that CLSE'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

	CLSE	FFLS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.68%	3.06%	+2.62%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.35%	6.27%	+4.08%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.47%	9.24%	+5.23%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.85%	11.19%	+2.66%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.85%	11.19%	+2.66%