CLSM vs. TBFC

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

CLSM (Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF) and TBFC (The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF) are both Tactical Allocation funds. CLSM is passively managed, while TBFC is actively managed. Over the past year, CLSM returned 35.30% vs 16.07% for TBFC. Their correlation of 0.84 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CLSM charges 0.82%/yr vs 0.44%/yr for TBFC.

Performance

CLSM vs. TBFC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF (CLSM) and The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF (TBFC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CLSM achieves a 20.91% return, which is significantly higher than TBFC's 6.02% return.

CLSM

• 1D: 0.55%
• 1M: 9.14%
• YTD: 20.91%
• 6M: 20.97%
• 1Y: 35.30%
• 3Y*: 13.89%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

TBFC

• 1D: 0.29%
• 1M: 2.39%
• YTD: 6.02%
• 6M: 6.78%
• 1Y: 16.07%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CLSM vs. TBFC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
CLSM Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF	20.91%	15.32%	3.56%
TBFC The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF	6.02%	11.38%	8.18%

Correlation

The correlation between CLSM and TBFC is 0.88, 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	0.88
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 17, 2024	0.84

The correlation between CLSM and TBFC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.84 to 0.88 - a consistent structural relationship.

CLSM vs. TBFC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CLSM	TBFC
Technology	51.8%	21.1%
Consumer Defensive	34.8%	6.3%
Communication Services	5.5%	6.0%
Consumer Cyclical	4.4%	8.1%
Healthcare	1.4%	8.9%
Industrials	1.0%	12.7%
Utilities	0.5%	3.8%
Basic Materials	0.4%	5.7%
Energy	0.2%	7.3%
Financial Services	0.1%	18.0%
Real Estate	0.0%	2.1%

Return for Risk

CLSM vs. TBFC — Risk / Return Rank

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

CLSM

CLSM Risk / Return Rank: 82
CLSM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
CLSM Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
CLSM Omega Ratio Rank: 83
CLSM Calmar Ratio Rank: 81
CLSM Martin Ratio Rank: 84

TBFC

TBFC Risk / Return Rank: 73
TBFC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
TBFC Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
TBFC Omega Ratio Rank: 80
TBFC Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
TBFC Martin Ratio Rank: 68

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. TBFC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF (CLSM) and The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF (TBFC). 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.

	CLSM	TBFC	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.79	2.55	+0.25
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.68	3.62	+0.06
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.51	1.49	+0.03
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.25	3.00	+1.26
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	17.62	12.70	+4.92
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CLSM vs. TBFC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CLSM Sharpe Ratio is 2.79, which is comparable to the TBFC Sharpe Ratio of 2.55. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CLSM and TBFC, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CLSM	TBFC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.79	2.55	+0.25
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.35	1.53	-1.17

Drawdowns

CLSM vs. TBFC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CLSM drawdown since its inception was -27.77%, which is greater than TBFC's maximum drawdown of -8.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CLSM and TBFC.

Drawdown Indicators

	CLSM	TBFC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-27.77%	-8.89%	-18.88%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.50%	-5.45%	-3.05%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.60%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-16.50%	-1.06%	-15.44%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.05%	1.29%	+0.76%

Volatility

CLSM vs. TBFC - Volatility Comparison

Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF (CLSM) has a higher volatility of 3.60% compared to The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF (TBFC) at 2.12%. This indicates that CLSM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than TBFC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CLSM	TBFC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.60%	2.12%	+1.48%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.58%	5.24%	+5.34%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.70%	6.34%	+6.36%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.47%	7.14%	+5.33%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.47%	7.14%	+5.33%

CLSM vs. TBFC - Expense Ratio Comparison

CLSM has a 0.82% expense ratio, which is higher than TBFC's 0.44% expense ratio.

Dividends

CLSM vs. TBFC - Dividend Comparison

CLSM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.74%, less than TBFC's 2.92% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
CLSM Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF	0.74%	0.90%	2.13%	2.58%	3.17%	0.59%
TBFC The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF	2.92%	3.28%	2.98%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CLSM and TBFC in my portfolio?

CLSM and TBFC have a correlation of 0.88, 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 TBFC?

CLSM has higher volatility (3.60%) compared to TBFC (2.12%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CLSM dropped -27.77% vs TBFC's -8.89%.

Which ETF is better, CLSM or TBFC?

On 1-year performance, CLSM leads with 35.30% vs 16.07% for TBFC. On fees, TBFC is cheaper at 0.44% per year. On volatility, TBFC has been the lower-risk option at 2.12%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CLSM or TBFC?

Over the 1-year period, CLSM has performed better with a 35.30% return vs 16.07%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CLSM or TBFC?

TBFC is cheaper with a 0.44% expense ratio, compared with 0.82% for CLSM.

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

TBFC has the higher dividend yield at 2.92%, compared with 0.74% for CLSM.

What is the main difference between CLSM and TBFC?

They also come from different issuers: Cabana and Brinsmere. Their fees differ too: 0.82% for CLSM and 0.44% for TBFC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CLSM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.79 vs 2.55), 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.