CWS vs. FAAR
CWS (AdvisorShares Focused Equity ETF) and FAAR (First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CWS is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by AdvisorShares, while FAAR is a Commodities fund actively managed by First Trust. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, CWS returned 8.12%/yr vs 7.72%/yr for FAAR. At a 0.02 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CWS charges 0.77%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for FAAR.
Performance
CWS vs. FAAR - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CWS achieves a -2.08% return, which is significantly lower than FAAR's 19.14% return.
CWS
- 1D
- -0.50%
- 1M
- 0.14%
- YTD
- -2.08%
- 6M
- -3.85%
- 1Y
- -1.44%
- 3Y*
- 9.20%
- 5Y*
- 8.12%
- 10Y*
- —
FAAR
- 1D
- -0.91%
- 1M
- -5.21%
- YTD
- 19.14%
- 6M
- 18.06%
- 1Y
- 28.33%
- 3Y*
- 10.57%
- 5Y*
- 7.72%
- 10Y*
- 4.69%
CWS vs. FAAR - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CWS AdvisorShares Focused Equity ETF | -2.08% | 6.43% | 9.82% | 25.06% | -10.42% | 22.20% | 17.12% | 30.97% | -6.46% | 20.92% |
FAAR First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF | 19.14% | 8.07% | 5.97% | -5.63% | 10.15% | 12.34% | 8.60% | -1.28% | -9.17% | 5.00% |
Correlation
The correlation between CWS and FAAR 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 (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | -0.01 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.01 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 21, 2016 | 0.02 |
The correlation between CWS and FAAR shifts across timeframes, from -0.09 (1 year) to 0.02 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
CWS vs. FAAR — Risk / Return Rank
CWS
FAAR
CWS vs. FAAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AdvisorShares Focused Equity ETF (CWS) and First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF (FAAR). 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.
| CWS | FAAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -2.26 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -3.15 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.99 | 1.37 | -0.37 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.12 | 4.52 | -4.64 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.30 | 15.18 | -15.48 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CWS vs. FAAR - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CWS drawdown since its inception was -33.82%, which is greater than FAAR's maximum drawdown of -18.03%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CWS and FAAR.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CWS | FAAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -33.82% | -18.03% | -15.79% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -11.92% | -6.29% | -5.63% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -16.56% | -11.54% | -5.02% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -24.87% | -18.03% | -6.84% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -18.03% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -6.49% | -6.29% | -0.20% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.55% | -7.82% | +3.27% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.77% | 1.87% | +2.90% |
Volatility
CWS vs. FAAR - Volatility Comparison
AdvisorShares Focused Equity ETF (CWS) has a higher volatility of 3.70% compared to First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF (FAAR) at 2.55%. This indicates that CWS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FAAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CWS | FAAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.70% | 2.55% | +1.15% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 10.41% | 9.68% | +0.73% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 13.48% | 13.38% | +0.10% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 15.68% | 12.96% | +2.72% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.89% | 11.54% | +5.35% |
CWS vs. FAAR - Expense Ratio Comparison
CWS has a 0.77% expense ratio, which is lower than FAAR's 0.95% expense ratio.
Dividends
CWS vs. FAAR - Dividend Comparison
CWS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.31%, less than FAAR's 9.66% 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% |
FAAR First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF | 9.66% | 11.63% | 3.45% | 3.20% | 5.82% | 6.49% | 3.05% | 1.02% | 0.58% | 2.83% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CWS and FAAR 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.
CWS has higher volatility (3.70%) compared to FAAR (2.55%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CWS dropped -33.82% vs FAAR's -18.03%.
On 5-year performance, CWS leads with 8.12% vs 7.72% for FAAR. On fees, CWS is cheaper at 0.77% per year. On volatility, FAAR has been the lower-risk option at 2.55%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, CWS has performed better with a 8.12% return vs 7.72%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
CWS is cheaper with a 0.77% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for FAAR.
FAAR has the higher dividend yield at 9.66%, compared with 0.31% for CWS.
CWS is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while FAAR is Commodities. They also come from different issuers: AdvisorShares and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.77% for CWS and 0.95% for FAAR.
FAAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.15 vs -0.11), 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.
Find the right allocation for CWS and FAAR
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