CLSE vs. MNA

Last updated Jun 21, 2026

CLSE (Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF) and MNA (IQ Merger Arbitrage ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CLSE is a Long-Short fund actively managed by Convergence Investment Partners, while MNA is a Hedge Fund fund tracking the IQ Merger Arbitrage Index. CLSE is actively managed, while MNA is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, CLSE returned 31.66%/yr vs 5.71%/yr for MNA. At a 0.25 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CLSE charges 1.52%/yr vs 0.77%/yr for MNA.

Performance

CLSE vs. MNA - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CLSE achieves a 25.06% return, which is significantly higher than MNA's 1.53% return.

CLSE

• 1D: 0.29%
• 1M: 3.61%
• YTD: 25.06%
• 6M: 24.84%
• 1Y: 50.50%
• 3Y*: 31.66%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

MNA

• 1D: 0.09%
• 1M: -0.50%
• YTD: 1.53%
• 6M: 1.05%
• 1Y: 4.12%
• 3Y*: 5.71%
• 5Y*: 1.93%
• 10Y*: 2.75%

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

CLSE vs. MNA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
CLSE Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF	25.06%	20.44%	35.54%	17.54%	-4.38%
MNA IQ Merger Arbitrage ETF	1.53%	8.59%	4.93%	0.18%	-0.09%

Correlation

The correlation between CLSE and MNA is 0.24, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.24
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.19
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 22, 2022	0.25

Return for Risk

CLSE vs. MNA — Risk / Return Rank

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

CLSE

CLSE Risk / Return Rank: 96
CLSE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
CLSE Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
CLSE Omega Ratio Rank: 94
CLSE Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
CLSE Martin Ratio Rank: 97

MNA

MNA Risk / Return Rank: 35
MNA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 24
MNA Sortino Ratio Rank: 23
MNA Omega Ratio Rank: 22
MNA Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
MNA Martin Ratio Rank: 44

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. MNA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF (CLSE) and IQ Merger Arbitrage ETF (MNA). 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	MNA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.66	0.83	+2.83
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.92	1.23	+3.69
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.64	1.15	+0.49
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	10.26	2.81	+7.45
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	37.35	6.89	+30.45

CLSE vs. MNA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CLSE Sharpe Ratio is 3.66, which is higher than the MNA Sharpe Ratio of 0.83. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CLSE and MNA, 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. MNA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CLSE drawdown since its inception was -16.45%, roughly equal to the maximum MNA drawdown of -16.68%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CLSE and MNA.

Drawdown Indicators

	CLSE	MNA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.45%	-16.68%	+0.23%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.85%	-1.40%	-3.45%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.45%	-3.01%	-13.44%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-10.24%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-16.68%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.78%	-0.79%	+0.01%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.57%	-2.83%	-0.74%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.33%	0.57%	+0.76%

Volatility

CLSE vs. MNA - Volatility Comparison

Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF (CLSE) has a higher volatility of 4.02% compared to IQ Merger Arbitrage ETF (MNA) at 1.34%. This indicates that CLSE's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MNA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CLSE	MNA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.02%	1.34%	+2.68%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.55%	3.52%	+7.03%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.61%	4.76%	+8.85%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.91%	4.98%	+8.93%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.91%	6.55%	+7.36%

CLSE vs. MNA - Expense Ratio Comparison

CLSE has a 1.52% expense ratio, which is higher than MNA's 0.77% expense ratio.

Dividends

CLSE vs. MNA - Dividend Comparison

CLSE's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.76%, while MNA has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CLSE Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF	0.76%	0.95%	0.93%	1.21%	0.85%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
MNA IQ Merger Arbitrage ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	1.20%	0.00%	0.00%	2.30%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.21%	0.87%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CLSE and MNA in my portfolio?

CLSE and MNA have a correlation of 0.24, 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 MNA?

CLSE has higher volatility (4.02%) compared to MNA (1.34%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CLSE dropped -16.45% vs MNA's -16.68%.

Which ETF is better, CLSE or MNA?

On 3-year performance, CLSE leads with 31.66% vs 5.71% for MNA. On fees, MNA is cheaper at 0.77% per year. On volatility, MNA has been the lower-risk option at 1.34%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CLSE or MNA?

Over the 3-year period, CLSE has performed better with a 31.66% return vs 5.71%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CLSE or MNA?

MNA is cheaper with a 0.77% expense ratio, compared with 1.52% for CLSE.

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

CLSE has the higher dividend yield at 0.76%, compared with 0.00% for MNA.

What is the main difference between CLSE and MNA?

CLSE is categorized as Long-Short, while MNA is Hedge Fund. They also come from different issuers: Convergence Investment Partners and New York Life. Their fees differ too: 1.52% for CLSE and 0.77% for MNA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CLSE currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.66 vs 0.83), 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.