CLSM vs. QQWZ

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

CLSM (Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF) and QQWZ (Pacer Cash COWZ 100-Nasdaq 100 Rotator ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CLSM is a Tactical Allocation fund tracking the Actively Managed, while QQWZ is a Nasdaq-100 fund actively managed by Pacer. CLSM is passively managed, while QQWZ is actively managed. Over the past year, CLSM returned 29.00% vs 31.25% for QQWZ. A 0.75 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CLSM charges 0.82%/yr vs 0.49%/yr for QQWZ.

Performance

CLSM vs. QQWZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF (CLSM) and Pacer Cash COWZ 100-Nasdaq 100 Rotator ETF (QQWZ). 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 QQWZ's 14.35% return.

CLSM

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

QQWZ

• 1D: -3.00%
• 1M: -0.25%
• YTD: 14.35%
• 6M: 11.94%
• 1Y: 31.25%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CLSM vs. QQWZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CLSM Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF	16.60%	16.00%
QQWZ Pacer Cash COWZ 100-Nasdaq 100 Rotator ETF	14.35%	26.23%

Correlation

The correlation between CLSM and QQWZ is 0.75, 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	0.75
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 7, 2025	0.75

The correlation between CLSM and QQWZ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.75 to 0.75 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

CLSM vs. QQWZ — 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

QQWZ

QQWZ Risk / Return Rank: 70
QQWZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
QQWZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
QQWZ Omega Ratio Rank: 66
QQWZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 81
QQWZ Martin Ratio Rank: 77

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. QQWZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF (CLSM) and Pacer Cash COWZ 100-Nasdaq 100 Rotator ETF (QQWZ). 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	QQWZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.09	2.01	+0.09
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.78	2.65	+0.13
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.37	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.43	4.02	-0.59
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.40	13.81	-0.41

CLSM vs. QQWZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CLSM Sharpe Ratio is 2.09, which is comparable to the QQWZ Sharpe Ratio of 2.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CLSM and QQWZ, 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. QQWZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CLSM drawdown since its inception was -27.77%, which is greater than QQWZ's maximum drawdown of -7.81%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CLSM and QQWZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	CLSM	QQWZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-27.77%	-7.81%	-19.96%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.50%	-7.81%	-0.69%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.60%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.57%	-4.07%	+0.50%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-16.34%	-1.44%	-14.90%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.17%	2.27%	-0.10%

Volatility

CLSM vs. QQWZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF (CLSM) is 6.46%, while Pacer Cash COWZ 100-Nasdaq 100 Rotator ETF (QQWZ) has a volatility of 8.52%. This indicates that CLSM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QQWZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CLSM	QQWZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.46%	8.52%	-2.06%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.06%	11.51%	+0.55%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.93%	15.68%	-1.75%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.70%	15.83%	-3.13%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.70%	15.83%	-3.13%

CLSM vs. QQWZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

CLSM has a 0.82% expense ratio, which is higher than QQWZ's 0.49% expense ratio.

Dividends

CLSM vs. QQWZ - Dividend Comparison

CLSM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.77%, more than QQWZ's 0.57% 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%
QQWZ Pacer Cash COWZ 100-Nasdaq 100 Rotator ETF	0.57%	0.11%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CLSM and QQWZ in my portfolio?

CLSM and QQWZ have a correlation of 0.75, 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 QQWZ?

QQWZ has higher volatility (8.52%) compared to CLSM (6.46%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CLSM dropped -27.77% vs QQWZ's -7.81%.

Which ETF is better, CLSM or QQWZ?

On 1-year performance, QQWZ leads with 31.25% vs 29.00% for CLSM. On fees, QQWZ is cheaper at 0.49% per year. On volatility, CLSM has been the lower-risk option at 6.46%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CLSM or QQWZ?

Over the 1-year period, QQWZ has performed better with a 31.25% return vs 29.00%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CLSM or QQWZ?

QQWZ is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.82% for CLSM.

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

CLSM has the higher dividend yield at 0.77%, compared with 0.57% for QQWZ.

What is the main difference between CLSM and QQWZ?

CLSM is categorized as Tactical Allocation, while QQWZ is Nasdaq-100. They also come from different issuers: Cabana and Pacer. Their fees differ too: 0.82% for CLSM and 0.49% for QQWZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CLSM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.09 vs 2.01), 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.