CSSD vs. SPFF
CSSD (Cohen & Steers Short Duration Preferred and Income Active ETF) and SPFF (Global X SuperIncome Preferred ETF) are both Preferred Stock funds. CSSD is actively managed, while SPFF is passively managed. Their 0.49 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. CSSD charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.58%/yr for SPFF.
Performance
CSSD vs. SPFF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CSSD achieves a 3.03% return, which is significantly lower than SPFF's 4.06% return.
CSSD
- 1D
- 0.16%
- 1M
- -0.07%
- 6M
- 1.93%
- YTD
- 3.03%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- —
SPFF
- 1D
- 0.21%
- 1M
- 1.07%
- 6M
- 2.74%
- YTD
- 4.06%
- 1Y
- 10.03%
- 3Y*
- 7.95%
- 5Y*
- 1.40%
- 10Y*
- 2.75%
- ALL TIME*
- 3.19%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $135.14K | $635.62K | $292.35K | |
| $461.72K | $400.05K | $611.33K |
CSSD vs. SPFF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
CSSD Cohen & Steers Short Duration Preferred and Income Active ETF | 3.03% | 0.49% |
SPFF Global X SuperIncome Preferred ETF | 4.06% | -0.07% |
Correlation
The correlation between CSSD and SPFF is 0.49, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 10, 2025 | 0.49 |
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. SPFF — Risk / Return Rank
CSSD
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
SPFF
CSSD vs. SPFF - 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 Global X SuperIncome Preferred ETF (SPFF). 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 | SPFF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.17 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 1.28 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 3.53 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CSSD vs. SPFF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CSSD drawdown since its inception was -2.32%, smaller than the maximum SPFF drawdown of -35.92%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CSSD and SPFF.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CSSD | SPFF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -2.32% | -35.92% | +33.60% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -7.58% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -12.51% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -22.88% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -35.92% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.25% | -2.86% | +2.61% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.28% | -4.05% | +3.77% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 2.74% | — |
Volatility
CSSD vs. SPFF - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CSSD | SPFF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 3.19% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 7.98% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.96% | 10.06% | -7.10% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 2.96% | 11.11% | -8.15% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 2.96% | 13.55% | -10.59% |
CSSD vs. SPFF - Expense Ratio Comparison
CSSD has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is lower than SPFF's 0.58% expense ratio.
Dividends
CSSD vs. SPFF - Dividend Comparison
CSSD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.63%, less than SPFF's 6.60% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CSSD Cohen & Steers Short Duration Preferred and Income Active ETF | 3.63% | 0.53% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
SPFF Global X SuperIncome Preferred ETF | 6.10% | 6.47% | 6.39% | 6.64% | 7.15% | 5.78% | 5.75% | 5.97% | 7.60% | 7.24% | 7.04% | 7.50% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CSSD and SPFF have a correlation of 0.49, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, CSSD is cheaper at 0.49% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
CSSD is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.58% for SPFF.
SPFF has the higher dividend yield at 6.10%, compared with 3.63% for CSSD.
They also come from different issuers: Cohen & Steers and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for CSSD and 0.58% for SPFF.
Find the right allocation for CSSD and SPFF
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