CLSE vs. HFGM

Last updated Aug 1, 2026

CLSE (Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF) and HFGM (Unlimited HFGM Global Macro ETF) are both Long-Short funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, CLSE returned 42.34% vs 23.08% for HFGM. Their 0.52 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. CLSE charges 1.52%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for HFGM.

Performance

CLSE vs. HFGM - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CLSE achieves a 24.37% return, which is significantly higher than HFGM's 5.58% return.

CLSE

• 1D: 0.24%
• 1M: 0.65%
• 6M: 20.32%
• YTD: 24.37%
• 1Y: 42.34%
• 3Y*: 29.42%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 20.44%

HFGM

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.73%
• 6M: -6.05%
• YTD: 5.58%
• 1Y: 23.08%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 25.39%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
CLSE Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF	$15.17M	$11.74M	$9.80M
HFGM Unlimited HFGM Global Macro ETF	$1.39M	$1.17M	$1.73M

CLSE vs. HFGM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CLSE Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF	24.37%	30.04%
HFGM Unlimited HFGM Global Macro ETF	5.58%	26.88%

Correlation

The correlation between CLSE and HFGM is 0.57, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.57
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 15, 2025	0.52

The correlation between CLSE and HFGM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.52 to 0.57 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

CLSE vs. HFGM — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

CLSE

CLSE Risk / Return Rank: 96
CLSE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
CLSE Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
CLSE Omega Ratio Rank: 95
CLSE Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
CLSE Martin Ratio Rank: 97

HFGM

HFGM Risk / Return Rank: 39
HFGM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
HFGM Sortino Ratio Rank: 38
HFGM Omega Ratio Rank: 39
HFGM Calmar Ratio Rank: 43
HFGM Martin Ratio Rank: 37

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

CLSE vs. HFGM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	CLSE	HFGM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.09	0.99	+2.10
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.23	1.44	+2.79
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.53	1.19	+0.35
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	8.77	1.54	+7.24
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	29.59	3.83	+25.77

CLSE vs. HFGM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CLSE Sharpe Ratio is 3.09, which is higher than the HFGM Sharpe Ratio of 0.99. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CLSE and HFGM, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

CLSE vs. HFGM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CLSE drawdown since its inception was -16.45%, which is greater than HFGM's maximum drawdown of -15.09%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CLSE and HFGM.

Drawdown Indicators

	CLSE	HFGM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.45%	-15.09%	-1.36%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.85%	-15.09%	+10.24%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.45%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.34%	-13.00%	+11.66%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.52%	-3.75%	+0.23%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.44%	6.05%	-4.61%

Volatility

CLSE vs. HFGM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF (CLSE) is 3.24%, while Unlimited HFGM Global Macro ETF (HFGM) has a volatility of 5.37%. This indicates that CLSE experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than HFGM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CLSE	HFGM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.24%	5.37%	-2.13%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.80%	17.11%	-6.31%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.79%	23.52%	-9.73%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.86%	21.66%	-7.80%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.86%	21.66%	-7.80%

CLSE vs. HFGM - Expense Ratio Comparison

CLSE has a 1.52% expense ratio, which is higher than HFGM's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

CLSE vs. HFGM - Dividend Comparison

CLSE's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.77%, less than HFGM's 10.64% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
CLSE Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF	0.77%	0.95%	0.93%	1.21%	0.85%
HFGM Unlimited HFGM Global Macro ETF	10.64%	11.23%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CLSE and HFGM in my portfolio?

CLSE and HFGM have a correlation of 0.57, 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 HFGM?

HFGM has higher volatility (5.37%) compared to CLSE (3.24%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CLSE dropped -16.45% vs HFGM's -15.09%.

Which ETF is better, CLSE or HFGM?

On 1-year performance, CLSE leads with 42.34% vs 23.08% for HFGM. On fees, HFGM is cheaper at 0.95% per year. On volatility, CLSE has been the lower-risk option at 3.24%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CLSE or HFGM?

Over the 1-year period, CLSE has performed better with a 42.34% return vs 23.08%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CLSE or HFGM?

HFGM is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 1.52% for CLSE.

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

HFGM has the higher dividend yield at 10.64%, compared with 0.77% for CLSE.

What is the main difference between CLSE and HFGM?

They also come from different issuers: Convergence and Unlimited. Their fees differ too: 1.52% for CLSE and 0.95% for HFGM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CLSE currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.09 vs 0.99), 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.