CONL vs. CSHP

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

CONL (GraniteShares 2x Long COIN Daily ETF) and CSHP (iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CONL is a Leveraged Equities fund actively managed by GraniteShares, while CSHP is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by iShares. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, CONL returned -74.16% vs 3.96% for CSHP. At a 0.06 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CONL charges 1.15%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for CSHP.

Performance

CONL vs. CSHP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GraniteShares 2x Long COIN Daily ETF (CONL) and iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF (CSHP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CONL achieves a -56.79% return, which is significantly lower than CSHP's 1.62% return.

CONL

• 1D: -9.57%
• 1M: -21.27%
• YTD: -56.79%
• 6M: -68.91%
• 1Y: -74.16%
• 3Y*: -11.06%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CSHP

• 1D: -0.01%
• 1M: 0.28%
• YTD: 1.62%
• 6M: 1.93%
• 1Y: 3.96%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CONL vs. CSHP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
CONL GraniteShares 2x Long COIN Daily ETF	-56.79%	-58.49%	-27.55%
CSHP iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF	1.62%	4.10%	2.24%

Correlation

The correlation between CONL and CSHP is -0.09, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.09
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 19, 2024	0.06

The correlation between CONL and CSHP shifts across timeframes, from -0.09 (1 year) to 0.06 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

CONL vs. CSHP - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CONL	CSHP
Financial Services	100.0%	0.1%
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

CONL vs. CSHP — Risk / Return Rank

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

CONL

CONL Risk / Return Rank: 4
CONL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4
CONL Sortino Ratio Rank: 5
CONL Omega Ratio Rank: 5
CONL Calmar Ratio Rank: 2
CONL Martin Ratio Rank: 3

CSHP

CSHP Risk / Return Rank: 100
CSHP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
CSHP Sortino Ratio Rank: 100
CSHP Omega Ratio Rank: 100
CSHP Calmar Ratio Rank: 100
CSHP Martin Ratio Rank: 100

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.

CONL vs. CSHP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GraniteShares 2x Long COIN Daily ETF (CONL) and iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF (CSHP). 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.

	CONL	CSHP	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	-0.54	11.92	-12.46
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	-0.43	31.30	-31.72
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.95	7.45	-6.49
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.81	65.71	-66.51
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	-1.13	433.00	-434.14
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CONL vs. CSHP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CONL Sharpe Ratio is -0.54, which is lower than the CSHP Sharpe Ratio of 11.92. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CONL and CSHP, 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

	CONL	CSHP	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.54	11.92	-12.46
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.18	10.74	-10.92

Drawdowns

CONL vs. CSHP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CONL drawdown since its inception was -93.95%, which is greater than CSHP's maximum drawdown of -0.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CONL and CSHP.

Drawdown Indicators

	CONL	CSHP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-93.95%	-0.08%	-93.87%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-92.02%	-0.06%	-91.96%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-93.95%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-92.57%	-0.01%	-92.56%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-55.91%	-0.00%	-55.91%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	65.48%	0.01%	+65.47%

Volatility

CONL vs. CSHP - Volatility Comparison

GraniteShares 2x Long COIN Daily ETF (CONL) has a higher volatility of 38.63% compared to iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF (CSHP) at 0.07%. This indicates that CONL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CSHP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CONL	CSHP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	38.63%	0.07%	+38.56%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	100.69%	0.24%	+100.45%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	138.87%	0.33%	+138.54%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	149.87%	0.40%	+149.47%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	149.87%	0.40%	+149.47%

CONL vs. CSHP - Expense Ratio Comparison

CONL has a 1.15% expense ratio, which is higher than CSHP's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

CONL vs. CSHP - Dividend Comparison

CONL has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CSHP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.92%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
CONL GraniteShares 2x Long COIN Daily ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.31%
CSHP iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF	3.92%	5.39%	1.96%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CONL and CSHP in my portfolio?

CONL and CSHP have a correlation of -0.09, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CONL or CSHP?

CONL has higher volatility (38.63%) compared to CSHP (0.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CONL dropped -93.95% vs CSHP's -0.08%.

Which ETF is better, CONL or CSHP?

On 1-year performance, CSHP leads with 3.96% vs -74.16% for CONL. On fees, CSHP is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, CSHP has been the lower-risk option at 0.07%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CONL or CSHP?

Over the 1-year period, CSHP has performed better with a 3.96% return vs -74.16%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CONL or CSHP?

CSHP is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 1.15% for CONL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CONL or CSHP?

CSHP has the higher dividend yield at 3.92%, compared with 0.00% for CONL.

What is the main difference between CONL and CSHP?

CONL is categorized as Leveraged Equities, while CSHP is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: GraniteShares and iShares. Their fees differ too: 1.15% for CONL and 0.20% for CSHP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CSHP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (11.92 vs -0.54), 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.