CLSM vs. XRLX

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

CLSM (Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF) and XRLX (FundX Conservative ETF) are both Tactical Allocation funds. CLSM is passively managed, while XRLX is actively managed. Over the past year, CLSM returned 35.30% vs 18.58% for XRLX. A 0.77 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CLSM charges 0.82%/yr vs 1.63%/yr for XRLX.

Performance

CLSM vs. XRLX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF (CLSM) and FundX Conservative ETF (XRLX). 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 XRLX's 8.36% return.

CLSM

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

XRLX

• 1D: 0.25%
• 1M: 4.48%
• YTD: 8.36%
• 6M: 8.80%
• 1Y: 18.58%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CLSM vs. XRLX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
CLSM Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF	20.91%	15.32%	1.87%	6.23%
XRLX FundX Conservative ETF	8.36%	7.85%	17.61%	7.14%

Correlation

The correlation between CLSM and XRLX is 0.90, 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	0.90
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 10, 2023	0.77

The correlation between CLSM and XRLX shifts across timeframes, from 0.77 (all time) to 0.90 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

CLSM vs. XRLX - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CLSM	XRLX
Technology	51.8%	36.8%
Consumer Defensive	34.8%	4.9%
Communication Services	5.5%	11.9%
Consumer Cyclical	4.4%	10.0%
Healthcare	1.4%	6.6%
Industrials	1.0%	7.1%
Utilities	0.5%	3.2%
Basic Materials	0.4%	2.7%
Energy	0.2%	3.3%
Financial Services	0.1%	12.1%
Real Estate	0.0%	1.4%

Return for Risk

CLSM vs. XRLX — 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

XRLX

XRLX Risk / Return Rank: 68
XRLX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
XRLX Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
XRLX Omega Ratio Rank: 70
XRLX Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
XRLX Martin Ratio Rank: 71

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. XRLX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF (CLSM) and FundX Conservative ETF (XRLX). 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	XRLX	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.79	2.31	+0.48
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.68	3.31	+0.38
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.51	1.43	+0.08
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.25	3.02	+1.24
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	17.62	13.65	+3.97
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. XRLX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CLSM Sharpe Ratio is 2.79, which is comparable to the XRLX Sharpe Ratio of 2.31. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CLSM and XRLX, 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	XRLX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.79	2.31	+0.48
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.35	1.44	-1.08

Drawdowns

CLSM vs. XRLX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CLSM drawdown since its inception was -27.77%, which is greater than XRLX's maximum drawdown of -15.33%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CLSM and XRLX.

Drawdown Indicators

	CLSM	XRLX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-27.77%	-15.33%	-12.44%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.50%	-6.28%	-2.22%
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%	-1.70%	-14.80%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.05%	1.39%	+0.66%

Volatility

CLSM vs. XRLX - Volatility Comparison

Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF (CLSM) has a higher volatility of 3.60% compared to FundX Conservative ETF (XRLX) at 2.59%. This indicates that CLSM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XRLX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CLSM	XRLX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.60%	2.59%	+1.01%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.58%	6.64%	+3.94%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.70%	8.08%	+4.62%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.47%	11.05%	+1.42%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.47%	11.05%	+1.42%

CLSM vs. XRLX - Expense Ratio Comparison

CLSM has a 0.82% expense ratio, which is lower than XRLX's 1.63% expense ratio.

Dividends

CLSM vs. XRLX - Dividend Comparison

CLSM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.74%, less than XRLX's 2.56% 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%
XRLX FundX Conservative ETF	2.56%	2.77%	1.66%	1.68%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CLSM and XRLX in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.90, CLSM and XRLX move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, CLSM or XRLX?

CLSM has higher volatility (3.60%) compared to XRLX (2.59%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CLSM dropped -27.77% vs XRLX's -15.33%.

Which ETF is better, CLSM or XRLX?

On 1-year performance, CLSM leads with 35.30% vs 18.58% for XRLX. On fees, CLSM is cheaper at 0.82% per year. On volatility, XRLX has been the lower-risk option at 2.59%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CLSM or XRLX?

Over the 1-year period, CLSM has performed better with a 35.30% return vs 18.58%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CLSM or XRLX?

CLSM is cheaper with a 0.82% expense ratio, compared with 1.63% for XRLX.

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

XRLX has the higher dividend yield at 2.56%, compared with 0.74% for CLSM.

What is the main difference between CLSM and XRLX?

They also come from different issuers: Cabana and FundX. Their fees differ too: 0.82% for CLSM and 1.63% for XRLX.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CLSM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.79 vs 2.31), 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.