CWS vs. EATZ

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CWS (AdvisorShares Focused Equity ETF) and EATZ (AdvisorShares Restaurant ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CWS is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by AdvisorShares, while EATZ is a Consumer Discretionary Equities fund actively managed by AdvisorShares. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, CWS returned 8.16%/yr vs 2.20%/yr for EATZ. A 0.60 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CWS charges 0.77%/yr vs 1.00%/yr for EATZ.

Performance

CWS vs. EATZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AdvisorShares Focused Equity ETF (CWS) and AdvisorShares Restaurant ETF (EATZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CWS achieves a -1.80% return, which is significantly lower than EATZ's 4.80% return.

CWS

• 1D: -0.02%
• 1M: -0.37%
• YTD: -1.80%
• 6M: -1.31%
• 1Y: -0.99%
• 3Y*: 10.25%
• 5Y*: 8.16%
• 10Y*: —

EATZ

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.00%
• YTD: 4.80%
• 6M: 3.18%
• 1Y: -6.88%
• 3Y*: 10.53%
• 5Y*: 2.20%
• 10Y*: —

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

CWS vs. EATZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
CWS AdvisorShares Focused Equity ETF	-1.80%	6.43%	9.82%	25.06%	-10.42%	13.86%
EATZ AdvisorShares Restaurant ETF	4.80%	-6.67%	23.21%	25.23%	-20.68%	-5.06%

Correlation

The correlation between CWS and EATZ is 0.51, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.51
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.61
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.60
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 22, 2021	0.60

The correlation between CWS and EATZ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.51 to 0.61 - a consistent structural relationship.

CWS vs. EATZ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CWS	EATZ
Healthcare	25.1%	-
Industrials	22.4%	4.9%
Technology	18.5%	-
Consumer Cyclical	15.1%	78.2%
Financial Services	10.8%	-
Consumer Defensive	4.2%	16.9%
Utilities	4.0%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	2.3%
Energy	-	-
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

CWS vs. EATZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

CWS

CWS Risk / Return Rank: 8
CWS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8
CWS Sortino Ratio Rank: 7
CWS Omega Ratio Rank: 7
CWS Calmar Ratio Rank: 8
CWS Martin Ratio Rank: 8

EATZ

EATZ Risk / Return Rank: 10
EATZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 10
EATZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 10
EATZ Omega Ratio Rank: 10
EATZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 10
EATZ Martin Ratio Rank: 10

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.

CWS vs. EATZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AdvisorShares Focused Equity ETF (CWS) and AdvisorShares Restaurant ETF (EATZ). 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.

	CWS	EATZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.08	0.10	-0.17
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.01	0.28	-0.29
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.00	1.03	-0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.08	0.08	-0.16
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.22	0.14	-0.36
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CWS vs. EATZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CWS Sharpe Ratio is -0.08, which is lower than the EATZ Sharpe Ratio of 0.10. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CWS and EATZ, 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

	CWS	EATZ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.08	0.10	-0.17
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.52	0.10	+0.42
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.67	0.12	+0.55

Drawdowns

CWS vs. EATZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CWS drawdown since its inception was -33.82%, roughly equal to the maximum EATZ drawdown of -34.40%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CWS and EATZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	CWS	EATZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.82%	-34.40%	+0.58%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.92%	-23.21%	+11.29%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.56%	-23.21%	+6.65%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.87%	-33.34%	+8.47%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.21%	-13.56%	+7.35%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.54%	-13.40%	+8.86%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.61%	12.82%	-8.21%

Volatility

CWS vs. EATZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for AdvisorShares Focused Equity ETF (CWS) is 3.27%, while AdvisorShares Restaurant ETF (EATZ) has a volatility of 4.91%. This indicates that CWS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EATZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CWS	EATZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.27%	4.91%	-1.64%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.29%	13.48%	-3.19%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.28%	18.81%	-5.53%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.66%	21.65%	-5.99%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.91%	21.60%	-4.69%

CWS vs. EATZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

CWS has a 0.77% expense ratio, which is lower than EATZ's 1.00% expense ratio.

Dividends

CWS vs. EATZ - Dividend Comparison

CWS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.31%, less than EATZ's 0.48% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
CWS AdvisorShares Focused Equity ETF	0.31%	0.31%	0.59%	0.25%	0.50%	0.16%	0.27%	0.39%	2.07%	0.29%	0.03%
EATZ AdvisorShares Restaurant ETF	0.48%	0.50%	0.18%	0.49%	2.35%	0.15%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CWS and EATZ in my portfolio?

CWS and EATZ have a correlation of 0.51, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CWS or EATZ?

EATZ has higher volatility (4.91%) compared to CWS (3.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CWS dropped -33.82% vs EATZ's -34.40%.

Which ETF is better, CWS or EATZ?

On 5-year performance, CWS leads with 8.16% vs 2.20% for EATZ. On fees, CWS is cheaper at 0.77% per year. On volatility, CWS has been the lower-risk option at 3.27%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CWS or EATZ?

Over the 5-year period, CWS has performed better with a 8.16% return vs 2.20%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CWS or EATZ?

CWS is cheaper with a 0.77% expense ratio, compared with 1.00% for EATZ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CWS or EATZ?

EATZ has the higher dividend yield at 0.48%, compared with 0.31% for CWS.

What is the main difference between CWS and EATZ?

CWS is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while EATZ is Consumer Discretionary Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.77% for CWS and 1.00% for EATZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EATZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.10 vs -0.07), 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.