CLSE vs. SBIT

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

CLSE (Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF) and SBIT (Proshares Ultrashort Bitcoin ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CLSE is a Long-Short fund actively managed by Convergence Investment Partners, while SBIT is a Cryptocurrency fund tracking the Bloomberg Bitcoin Index (-200%). CLSE is actively managed, while SBIT is passively managed. Over the past year, CLSE returned 47.95% vs 124.12% for SBIT. At a correlation of -0.29, they often move in opposite directions. CLSE charges 1.52%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for SBIT.

Performance

CLSE vs. SBIT - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CLSE achieves a 24.66% return, which is significantly lower than SBIT's 44.00% return.

CLSE

• 1D: -0.29%
• 1M: -0.41%
• 6M: 22.60%
• YTD: 24.66%
• 1Y: 47.95%
• 3Y*: 29.99%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

SBIT

• 1D: 5.38%
• 1M: 1.44%
• 6M: 58.27%
• YTD: 44.00%
• 1Y: 124.12%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CLSE vs. SBIT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
CLSE Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF	24.66%	20.44%	12.93%
SBIT Proshares Ultrashort Bitcoin ETF	44.00%	-25.11%	-73.74%

Correlation

The correlation between CLSE and SBIT is -0.31, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.31
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 2, 2024	-0.29

Return for Risk

CLSE vs. SBIT — Risk / Return Rank

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

CLSE

CLSE Risk / Return Rank: 97
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

SBIT

SBIT Risk / Return Rank: 52
SBIT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 51
SBIT Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
SBIT Omega Ratio Rank: 48
SBIT Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
SBIT Martin Ratio Rank: 45

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. SBIT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF (CLSE) and Proshares Ultrashort Bitcoin ETF (SBIT). 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	SBIT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.51	1.41	+2.10
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.69	2.05	+2.64
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.61	1.25	+0.36
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	9.94	2.60	+7.33
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	34.91	5.92	+28.99

CLSE vs. SBIT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CLSE Sharpe Ratio is 3.51, which is higher than the SBIT Sharpe Ratio of 1.41. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CLSE and SBIT, 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. SBIT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CLSE drawdown since its inception was -16.45%, smaller than the maximum SBIT drawdown of -91.35%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CLSE and SBIT.

Drawdown Indicators

	CLSE	SBIT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.45%	-91.35%	+74.90%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.85%	-47.94%	+43.09%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.45%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.10%	-77.15%	+76.05%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.54%	-68.83%	+65.29%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.38%	21.04%	-19.66%

Volatility

CLSE vs. SBIT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF (CLSE) is 3.92%, while Proshares Ultrashort Bitcoin ETF (SBIT) has a volatility of 22.98%. This indicates that CLSE experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SBIT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CLSE	SBIT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.92%	22.98%	-19.06%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.73%	68.89%	-58.16%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.76%	88.51%	-74.75%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.90%	96.89%	-82.99%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.90%	96.89%	-82.99%

CLSE vs. SBIT - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

CLSE vs. SBIT - Dividend Comparison

CLSE's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.76%, less than SBIT's 3.97% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
CLSE Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF	0.76%	0.95%	0.93%	1.21%	0.85%
SBIT Proshares Ultrashort Bitcoin ETF	3.97%	0.52%	1.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CLSE and SBIT in my portfolio?

CLSE and SBIT have a correlation of -0.31, 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 SBIT?

SBIT has higher volatility (22.98%) compared to CLSE (3.92%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CLSE dropped -16.45% vs SBIT's -91.35%.

Which ETF is better, CLSE or SBIT?

On 1-year performance, SBIT leads with 124.12% vs 47.95% for CLSE. On fees, SBIT is cheaper at 0.95% per year. On volatility, CLSE has been the lower-risk option at 3.92%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CLSE or SBIT?

Over the 1-year period, SBIT has performed better with a 124.12% return vs 47.95%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CLSE or SBIT?

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

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

SBIT has the higher dividend yield at 3.97%, compared with 0.76% for CLSE.

What is the main difference between CLSE and SBIT?

CLSE is categorized as Long-Short, while SBIT is Cryptocurrency. They also come from different issuers: Convergence Investment Partners and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 1.52% for CLSE and 0.95% for SBIT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CLSE currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.51 vs 1.41), 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.