CLSM vs. IBIC

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

CLSM (Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF) and IBIC (iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CLSM is a Tactical Allocation fund tracking the Actively Managed, while IBIC is a Inflation-Protected Bonds fund tracking the ICE 2026 Maturity US Inflation-Linked Treasury Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, CLSM returned 29.00% vs 4.42% for IBIC. At a 0.01 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CLSM charges 0.82%/yr vs 0.10%/yr for IBIC.

Performance

CLSM vs. IBIC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF (CLSM) and iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF (IBIC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CLSM achieves a 16.60% return, which is significantly higher than IBIC's 2.43% return.

CLSM

• 1D: -1.97%
• 1M: -0.30%
• YTD: 16.60%
• 6M: 15.06%
• 1Y: 29.00%
• 3Y*: 13.32%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IBIC

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: 0.12%
• YTD: 2.43%
• 6M: 2.57%
• 1Y: 4.42%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CLSM vs. IBIC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
CLSM Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF	16.60%	15.32%	1.87%	6.58%
IBIC iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF	2.43%	4.96%	5.25%	2.17%

Correlation

The correlation between CLSM and IBIC is -0.17, 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	-0.17
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 15, 2023	0.01

The correlation between CLSM and IBIC shifts across timeframes, from -0.17 (1 year) to 0.01 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

CLSM vs. IBIC — Risk / Return Rank

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

CLSM

CLSM Risk / Return Rank: 72
CLSM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
CLSM Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
CLSM Omega Ratio Rank: 71
CLSM Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
CLSM Martin Ratio Rank: 77

IBIC

IBIC Risk / Return Rank: 98
IBIC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 98
IBIC Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
IBIC Omega Ratio Rank: 98
IBIC Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
IBIC Martin Ratio Rank: 98

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.

CLSM vs. IBIC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF (CLSM) and iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF (IBIC). 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.

	CLSM	IBIC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.09	4.99	-2.89
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.78	8.97	-6.20
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	2.22	-0.84
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.43	16.56	-13.14
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.40	58.67	-45.27

CLSM vs. IBIC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CLSM Sharpe Ratio is 2.09, which is lower than the IBIC Sharpe Ratio of 4.99. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CLSM and IBIC, 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

CLSM vs. IBIC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CLSM drawdown since its inception was -27.77%, which is greater than IBIC's maximum drawdown of -0.90%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CLSM and IBIC.

Drawdown Indicators

	CLSM	IBIC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-27.77%	-0.90%	-26.87%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.50%	-0.27%	-8.23%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.60%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.57%	-0.08%	-3.49%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-16.34%	-0.10%	-16.24%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.17%	0.08%	+2.09%

Volatility

CLSM vs. IBIC - Volatility Comparison

Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF (CLSM) has a higher volatility of 6.46% compared to iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF (IBIC) at 0.17%. This indicates that CLSM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IBIC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CLSM	IBIC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.46%	0.17%	+6.29%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.06%	0.67%	+11.39%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.93%	0.89%	+13.04%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.70%	1.56%	+11.14%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.70%	1.56%	+11.14%

CLSM vs. IBIC - Expense Ratio Comparison

CLSM has a 0.82% expense ratio, which is higher than IBIC's 0.10% expense ratio.

Dividends

CLSM vs. IBIC - Dividend Comparison

CLSM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.77%, less than IBIC's 3.58% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
CLSM Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF	0.77%	0.90%	2.13%	2.58%	3.17%	0.59%
IBIC iShares iBonds Oct 2026 Term TIPS ETF	3.58%	4.43%	4.65%	0.83%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CLSM and IBIC in my portfolio?

CLSM and IBIC have a correlation of -0.17, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CLSM or IBIC?

CLSM has higher volatility (6.46%) compared to IBIC (0.17%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CLSM dropped -27.77% vs IBIC's -0.90%.

Which ETF is better, CLSM or IBIC?

On 1-year performance, CLSM leads with 29.00% vs 4.42% for IBIC. On fees, IBIC is cheaper at 0.10% per year. On volatility, IBIC has been the lower-risk option at 0.17%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CLSM or IBIC?

Over the 1-year period, CLSM has performed better with a 29.00% return vs 4.42%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CLSM or IBIC?

IBIC is cheaper with a 0.10% expense ratio, compared with 0.82% for CLSM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CLSM or IBIC?

IBIC has the higher dividend yield at 3.58%, compared with 0.77% for CLSM.

What is the main difference between CLSM and IBIC?

CLSM is categorized as Tactical Allocation, while IBIC is Inflation-Protected Bonds. CLSM tracks Actively Managed, while IBIC tracks ICE 2026 Maturity US Inflation-Linked Treasury Index. They also come from different issuers: Cabana and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.82% for CLSM and 0.10% for IBIC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBIC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.99 vs 2.09), 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.