CSSD vs. EPRF
CSSD (Cohen & Steers Short Duration Preferred and Income Active ETF) and EPRF (Innovator S&P High Quality Preferred ETF) are both Preferred Stock/Convertible Bonds funds. CSSD is actively managed, while EPRF is passively managed. At a 0.41 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CSSD charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.47%/yr for EPRF.
Performance
CSSD vs. EPRF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CSSD achieves a 2.72% return, which is significantly higher than EPRF's -2.88% return.
CSSD
- 1D
- -0.12%
- 1M
- 0.68%
- YTD
- 2.72%
- 6M
- 2.91%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
EPRF
- 1D
- -0.33%
- 1M
- -0.69%
- YTD
- -2.88%
- 6M
- -3.70%
- 1Y
- 1.17%
- 3Y*
- 2.89%
- 5Y*
- -2.19%
- 10Y*
- —
CSSD vs. EPRF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
CSSD Cohen & Steers Short Duration Preferred and Income Active ETF | 2.72% | 0.49% |
EPRF Innovator S&P High Quality Preferred ETF | -2.88% | -0.68% |
Correlation
The correlation between CSSD and EPRF is 0.41, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 10, 2025 | 0.41 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
CSSD vs. EPRF — Risk / Return Rank
CSSD
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
EPRF
CSSD vs. EPRF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Cohen & Steers Short Duration Preferred and Income Active ETF (CSSD) and Innovator S&P High Quality Preferred ETF (EPRF). 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.
| CSSD | EPRF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.03 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 0.14 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 0.28 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CSSD vs. EPRF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CSSD drawdown since its inception was -2.32%, smaller than the maximum EPRF drawdown of -26.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CSSD and EPRF.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CSSD | EPRF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -2.32% | -26.82% | +24.50% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -8.59% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -12.29% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -25.23% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.20% | -11.51% | +11.31% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.29% | -7.39% | +7.10% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 4.26% | — |
Volatility
CSSD vs. EPRF - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CSSD | EPRF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 2.07% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 5.48% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.08% | 7.62% | -4.54% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 3.08% | 11.83% | -8.75% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 3.08% | 13.46% | -10.38% |
CSSD vs. EPRF - Expense Ratio Comparison
CSSD has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is higher than EPRF's 0.47% expense ratio.
Dividends
CSSD vs. EPRF - Dividend Comparison
CSSD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.63%, less than EPRF's 6.21% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CSSD Cohen & Steers Short Duration Preferred and Income Active ETF | 2.63% | 0.53% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
EPRF Innovator S&P High Quality Preferred ETF | 6.21% | 6.03% | 6.13% | 5.71% | 5.67% | 4.70% | 4.92% | 5.01% | 5.27% | 2.59% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CSSD and EPRF have a correlation of 0.41, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, EPRF is cheaper at 0.47% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
EPRF is cheaper with a 0.47% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for CSSD.
EPRF has the higher dividend yield at 6.21%, compared with 2.63% for CSSD.
They also come from different issuers: Cohen & Steers and Innovator. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for CSSD and 0.47% for EPRF.
Find the right allocation for CSSD and EPRF
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer