EATZ vs. CWS

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

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

Performance

EATZ vs. CWS - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

EATZ

• 1D: —
• 1M: —
• YTD: —
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CWS

• 1D: -0.50%
• 1M: 0.14%
• YTD: -2.08%
• 6M: -3.85%
• 1Y: -1.44%
• 3Y*: 9.20%
• 5Y*: 8.12%
• 10Y*: —

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

EATZ vs. CWS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
EATZ AdvisorShares Restaurant ETF	4.80%	-6.67%	23.21%	25.23%	-20.68%	-4.90%
CWS AdvisorShares Focused Equity ETF	-2.08%	6.43%	9.82%	25.06%	-10.42%	15.05%

Correlation

The correlation between EATZ and CWS is 0.50, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.50
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 21, 2021	0.60

The correlation between EATZ and CWS shifts across timeframes, from 0.50 (1 year) to 0.61 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

EATZ vs. CWS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EATZ	CWS
Consumer Cyclical	78.2%	13.5%
Consumer Defensive	16.9%	4.3%
Industrials	4.9%	23.8%
Communication Services	2.3%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	10.9%
Healthcare	-	24.2%
Real Estate	-	-
Technology	-	19.5%
Utilities	-	3.8%

Return for Risk

EATZ vs. CWS — Risk / Return Rank

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

EATZ

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

CWS

CWS Risk / Return Rank: 7
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

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.

EATZ vs. CWS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	EATZ	CWS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	-0.11	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	-0.06	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	0.99	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	-0.12	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	-0.30	—

Drawdowns

Drawdown Indicators

	EATZ	CWS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	—	-33.82%	—
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-11.92%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-16.56%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-24.87%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	—	-6.49%	—
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	—	-4.55%	—
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	4.77%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	EATZ	CWS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	3.70%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	10.41%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	13.48%	—
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	—	15.68%	—
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	—	16.89%	—

EATZ vs. CWS - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

EATZ vs. CWS - Dividend Comparison

EATZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.48%, more than CWS's 0.31% 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 EATZ and CWS in my portfolio?

EATZ and CWS have a correlation of 0.50, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, EATZ or CWS?

On fees, CWS is cheaper at 0.77% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, EATZ or CWS?

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

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

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

What is the main difference between EATZ and CWS?

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