ESBG vs. CLSE

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

ESBG (First Trust Enhanced Stocks, Bonds & Gold ETF) and CLSE (Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ESBG is a Tactical Allocation fund actively managed by First Trust, while CLSE is a Long-Short fund actively managed by Convergence Investment Partners. Both are actively managed. At a 0.40 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ESBG charges 0.95%/yr vs 1.56%/yr for CLSE.

Performance

ESBG vs. CLSE - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Enhanced Stocks, Bonds & Gold ETF (ESBG) and Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF (CLSE). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ESBG achieves a 5.96% return, which is significantly lower than CLSE's 25.54% return.

ESBG

• 1D: 0.79%
• 1M: 1.11%
• YTD: 5.96%
• 6M: 7.17%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CLSE

• 1D: -0.17%
• 1M: 7.35%
• YTD: 25.54%
• 6M: 28.02%
• 1Y: 51.14%
• 3Y*: 32.33%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

ESBG vs. CLSE - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
ESBG First Trust Enhanced Stocks, Bonds & Gold ETF	5.96%	5.72%
CLSE Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF	25.54%	4.13%

Correlation

The correlation between ESBG and CLSE is 0.40, 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 Nov 20, 2025	0.40

Return for Risk

ESBG vs. CLSE — Risk / Return Rank

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

CLSE

CLSE Risk / Return Rank: 96
CLSE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
CLSE Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
CLSE Omega Ratio Rank: 94
CLSE Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
CLSE Martin Ratio Rank: 96

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.

ESBG vs. CLSE - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Enhanced Stocks, Bonds & Gold ETF (ESBG) and Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF (CLSE). 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.

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

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	ESBG	CLSE	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	3.86	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.95	1.59	-0.64

Drawdowns

ESBG vs. CLSE - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ESBG drawdown since its inception was -18.84%, which is greater than CLSE's maximum drawdown of -16.45%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ESBG and CLSE.

Drawdown Indicators

	ESBG	CLSE	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-18.84%	-16.45%	-2.39%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-4.85%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-16.45%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.14%	-0.17%	-9.97%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.27%	-3.59%	-2.68%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	1.29%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	ESBG	CLSE	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	4.16%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	10.20%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	25.19%	13.31%	+11.88%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	25.19%	13.88%	+11.31%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.19%	13.88%	+11.31%

ESBG vs. CLSE - Expense Ratio Comparison

ESBG has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is lower than CLSE's 1.56% expense ratio.

Dividends

ESBG vs. CLSE - Dividend Comparison

ESBG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.57%, less than CLSE's 0.76% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
CLSE Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF	0.76%	0.95%	0.93%	1.21%	0.85%
ESBG First Trust Enhanced Stocks, Bonds & Gold ETF	0.57%	0.24%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ESBG and CLSE in my portfolio?

ESBG and CLSE have a correlation of 0.40, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, ESBG or CLSE?

On fees, ESBG is cheaper at 0.95% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, ESBG or CLSE?

ESBG is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 1.56% for CLSE.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ESBG or CLSE?

CLSE has the higher dividend yield at 0.76%, compared with 0.57% for ESBG.

What is the main difference between ESBG and CLSE?

ESBG is categorized as Tactical Allocation, while CLSE is Long-Short. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Convergence Investment Partners. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for ESBG and 1.56% for CLSE.