CLSE vs. GGRW

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CLSE (Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF) and GGRW (Gabelli Growth Innovators ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CLSE is a Long-Short fund actively managed by Convergence Investment Partners, while GGRW is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by GAMCO Investors, Inc.. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, CLSE returned 32.39%/yr vs 27.06%/yr for GGRW. A 0.64 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CLSE charges 1.56%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for GGRW.

Performance

CLSE vs. GGRW - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CLSE achieves a 25.76% return, which is significantly higher than GGRW's 6.11% return.

CLSE

• 1D: 0.35%
• 1M: 9.28%
• YTD: 25.76%
• 6M: 28.57%
• 1Y: 50.91%
• 3Y*: 32.39%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

GGRW

• 1D: -0.84%
• 1M: 4.23%
• YTD: 6.11%
• 6M: 5.58%
• 1Y: 17.42%
• 3Y*: 27.06%
• 5Y*: 9.85%
• 10Y*: —

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

CLSE vs. GGRW - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
CLSE Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF	25.76%	20.44%	35.54%	17.54%	-3.04%
GGRW Gabelli Growth Innovators ETF	6.11%	18.29%	41.78%	42.19%	-30.22%

Correlation

The correlation between CLSE and GGRW is 0.71, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.71
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.76
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 23, 2022	0.64

The correlation between CLSE and GGRW shifts across timeframes, from 0.64 (all time) to 0.76 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

CLSE vs. GGRW - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CLSE	GGRW
Technology	33.2%	37.1%
Healthcare	6.5%	8.1%
Consumer Cyclical	6.2%	10.6%
Communication Services	6.1%	14.6%
Energy	2.7%	-
Industrials	2.2%	10.9%
Utilities	1.7%	3.9%
Real Estate	1.7%	-
Basic Materials	1.5%	1.2%
Consumer Defensive	0.9%	0.7%
Financial Services	-2.5%	9.3%

Return for Risk

CLSE vs. GGRW — Risk / Return Rank

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

CLSE

CLSE Risk / Return Rank: 95
CLSE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
CLSE Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
CLSE Omega Ratio Rank: 93
CLSE Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
CLSE Martin Ratio Rank: 96

GGRW

GGRW Risk / Return Rank: 31
GGRW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 33
GGRW Sortino Ratio Rank: 32
GGRW Omega Ratio Rank: 31
GGRW Calmar Ratio Rank: 28
GGRW Martin Ratio Rank: 33

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. GGRW - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF (CLSE) and Gabelli Growth Innovators ETF (GGRW). 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	GGRW	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.84	1.19	+2.66
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	5.20	1.71	+3.50
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.67	1.21	+0.46
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	10.55	1.33	+9.22
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	39.58	5.00	+34.57
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. GGRW - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CLSE Sharpe Ratio is 3.84, which is higher than the GGRW Sharpe Ratio of 1.19. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CLSE and GGRW, 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

	CLSE	GGRW	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.84	1.19	+2.66
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.39	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.59	0.31	+1.28

Drawdowns

CLSE vs. GGRW - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CLSE drawdown since its inception was -16.45%, smaller than the maximum GGRW drawdown of -50.28%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CLSE and GGRW.

Drawdown Indicators

	CLSE	GGRW	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.45%	-50.28%	+33.83%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.85%	-13.19%	+8.34%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.45%	-20.53%	+4.08%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-50.28%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.90%	+0.90%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.59%	-17.39%	+13.80%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.29%	3.49%	-2.20%

Volatility

CLSE vs. GGRW - Volatility Comparison

Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF (CLSE) has a higher volatility of 4.31% compared to Gabelli Growth Innovators ETF (GGRW) at 3.86%. This indicates that CLSE's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GGRW based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CLSE	GGRW	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.31%	3.86%	+0.45%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.21%	11.64%	-1.43%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.32%	14.73%	-1.41%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.88%	25.33%	-11.45%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.88%	25.50%	-11.62%

CLSE vs. GGRW - Expense Ratio Comparison

CLSE has a 1.56% expense ratio, which is higher than GGRW's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

CLSE vs. GGRW - Dividend Comparison

CLSE's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.76%, more than GGRW's 0.40% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
CLSE Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF	0.76%	0.95%	0.93%	1.21%	0.85%
GGRW Gabelli Growth Innovators ETF	0.40%	0.43%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CLSE and GGRW in my portfolio?

CLSE and GGRW have a correlation of 0.71, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CLSE or GGRW?

CLSE has higher volatility (4.31%) compared to GGRW (3.86%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CLSE dropped -16.45% vs GGRW's -50.28%.

Which ETF is better, CLSE or GGRW?

On 3-year performance, CLSE leads with 32.39% vs 27.06% for GGRW. On fees, GGRW is cheaper at 0.90% per year. On volatility, GGRW has been the lower-risk option at 3.86%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CLSE or GGRW?

Over the 3-year period, CLSE has performed better with a 32.39% return vs 27.06%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CLSE or GGRW?

GGRW is cheaper with a 0.90% expense ratio, compared with 1.56% for CLSE.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CLSE or GGRW?

CLSE has the higher dividend yield at 0.76%, compared with 0.40% for GGRW.

What is the main difference between CLSE and GGRW?

CLSE is categorized as Long-Short, while GGRW is Large Cap Growth Equities. They also come from different issuers: Convergence Investment Partners and GAMCO Investors, Inc.. Their fees differ too: 1.56% for CLSE and 0.90% for GGRW.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CLSE currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.84 vs 1.19), 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.