CLSM vs. RHRX

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

CLSM (Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF) and RHRX (RH Tactical Rotation ETF) are both Tactical Allocation funds. CLSM is passively managed, while RHRX is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, CLSM returned 13.32%/yr vs 21.00%/yr for RHRX. A 0.65 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CLSM charges 0.82%/yr vs 1.36%/yr for RHRX.

Performance

CLSM vs. RHRX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF (CLSM) and RH Tactical Rotation ETF (RHRX). 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 lower than RHRX's 18.02% return.

CLSM

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

RHRX

• 1D: -2.79%
• 1M: 0.50%
• YTD: 18.02%
• 6M: 17.04%
• 1Y: 35.22%
• 3Y*: 21.00%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CLSM vs. RHRX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
CLSM Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF	16.60%	15.32%	1.87%	3.78%	-23.23%	-0.23%
RHRX RH Tactical Rotation ETF	18.02%	16.70%	22.21%	10.28%	-20.05%	1.33%

Correlation

The correlation between CLSM and RHRX is 0.89, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.89
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.74
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 8, 2021	0.65

Over the past year, CLSM and RHRX have become more correlated (0.89) than their long-term average of 0.65, meaning their price movements have been converging.

Return for Risk

CLSM vs. RHRX — 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

RHRX

RHRX Risk / Return Rank: 85
RHRX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
RHRX Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
RHRX Omega Ratio Rank: 80
RHRX Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
RHRX Martin Ratio Rank: 90

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. RHRX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF (CLSM) and RH Tactical Rotation ETF (RHRX). 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	RHRX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.09	2.49	-0.40
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.78	3.31	-0.53
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.44	-0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.43	5.18	-1.75
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.40	19.38	-5.98

CLSM vs. RHRX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CLSM Sharpe Ratio is 2.09, which is comparable to the RHRX Sharpe Ratio of 2.49. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CLSM and RHRX, 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. RHRX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CLSM drawdown since its inception was -27.77%, which is greater than RHRX's maximum drawdown of -25.33%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CLSM and RHRX.

Drawdown Indicators

	CLSM	RHRX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-27.77%	-25.33%	-2.44%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.50%	-6.83%	-1.67%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.60%	-21.90%	+7.30%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.57%	-3.34%	-0.23%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-16.34%	-8.87%	-7.47%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.17%	1.82%	+0.35%

Volatility

CLSM vs. RHRX - Volatility Comparison

Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF (CLSM) and RH Tactical Rotation ETF (RHRX) have volatilities of 6.46% and 6.49%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CLSM	RHRX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.46%	6.49%	-0.03%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.06%	11.22%	+0.84%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.93%	14.24%	-0.31%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.70%	19.12%	-6.42%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.70%	19.12%	-6.42%

CLSM vs. RHRX - Expense Ratio Comparison

CLSM has a 0.82% expense ratio, which is lower than RHRX's 1.36% expense ratio.

Dividends

CLSM vs. RHRX - Dividend Comparison

CLSM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.77%, while RHRX has not paid dividends to shareholders.

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%
RHRX RH Tactical Rotation ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CLSM and RHRX in my portfolio?

CLSM and RHRX have a correlation of 0.89, 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 RHRX?

RHRX has higher volatility (6.49%) compared to CLSM (6.46%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CLSM dropped -27.77% vs RHRX's -25.33%.

Which ETF is better, CLSM or RHRX?

On 3-year performance, RHRX leads with 21.00% vs 13.32% for CLSM. On fees, CLSM is cheaper at 0.82% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CLSM or RHRX?

Over the 3-year period, RHRX has performed better with a 21.00% return vs 13.32%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CLSM or RHRX?

CLSM is cheaper with a 0.82% expense ratio, compared with 1.36% for RHRX.

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

CLSM has the higher dividend yield at 0.77%, compared with 0.00% for RHRX.

What is the main difference between CLSM and RHRX?

They also come from different issuers: Cabana and Adaptive. Their fees differ too: 0.82% for CLSM and 1.36% for RHRX.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RHRX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.49 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.