FDAT vs. CLSM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FDAT (Tactical Advantage ETF) and CLSM (Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FDAT is a Diversified Portfolio fund actively managed by Tactical Funds, while CLSM is a Tactical Allocation fund tracking the Actively Managed. FDAT is actively managed, while CLSM is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, FDAT returned 9.02%/yr vs 13.75%/yr for CLSM. A 0.72 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FDAT charges 0.74%/yr vs 0.82%/yr for CLSM.

Performance

FDAT vs. CLSM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Tactical Advantage ETF (FDAT) and Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF (CLSM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FDAT achieves a 3.20% return, which is significantly lower than CLSM's 20.45% return.

FDAT

• 1D: -0.27%
• 1M: 1.24%
• YTD: 3.20%
• 6M: 3.66%
• 1Y: 11.57%
• 3Y*: 9.02%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CLSM

• 1D: -0.38%
• 1M: 9.23%
• YTD: 20.45%
• 6M: 20.19%
• 1Y: 34.21%
• 3Y*: 13.75%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FDAT vs. CLSM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FDAT Tactical Advantage ETF	3.20%	7.50%	9.90%	6.14%
CLSM Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF	20.45%	15.32%	1.87%	4.01%

Correlation

The correlation between FDAT and CLSM is 0.83, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.83
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.74
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 21, 2023	0.72

The correlation between FDAT and CLSM shifts across timeframes, from 0.72 (all time) to 0.83 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FDAT vs. CLSM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FDAT	CLSM
Financial Services	22.5%	0.1%
Industrials	21.8%	1.0%
Technology	14.9%	51.8%
Basic Materials	9.2%	0.4%
Consumer Cyclical	8.4%	4.4%
Energy	7.8%	0.2%
Real Estate	5.4%	0.0%
Healthcare	3.2%	1.4%
Utilities	2.8%	0.5%
Consumer Defensive	2.2%	34.8%
Communication Services	1.7%	5.5%

Return for Risk

FDAT vs. CLSM — Risk / Return Rank

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

FDAT

FDAT Risk / Return Rank: 35
FDAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 33
FDAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 32
FDAT Omega Ratio Rank: 32
FDAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 40
FDAT Martin Ratio Rank: 37

CLSM

CLSM Risk / Return Rank: 82
CLSM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
CLSM Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
CLSM Omega Ratio Rank: 83
CLSM Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
CLSM Martin Ratio Rank: 83

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.

FDAT vs. CLSM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Tactical Advantage ETF (FDAT) and Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF (CLSM). 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.

	FDAT	CLSM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.18	2.71	-1.53
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.69	3.58	-1.90
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.21	1.50	-0.28
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.97	4.04	-2.07
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.59	16.72	-11.13
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FDAT vs. CLSM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FDAT Sharpe Ratio is 1.18, which is lower than the CLSM Sharpe Ratio of 2.71. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FDAT and CLSM, 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

	FDAT	CLSM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.18	2.71	-1.53
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.92	0.35	+0.57

Drawdowns

FDAT vs. CLSM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FDAT drawdown since its inception was -8.20%, smaller than the maximum CLSM drawdown of -27.77%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FDAT and CLSM.

Drawdown Indicators

	FDAT	CLSM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-8.20%	-27.77%	+19.57%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.88%	-8.50%	+2.62%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-8.20%	-14.60%	+6.40%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.27%	-0.38%	-1.89%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.25%	-16.49%	+14.24%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.07%	2.05%	+0.02%

Volatility

FDAT vs. CLSM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Tactical Advantage ETF (FDAT) is 3.31%, while Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF (CLSM) has a volatility of 3.58%. This indicates that FDAT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CLSM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FDAT	CLSM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.31%	3.58%	-0.27%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.91%	10.54%	-3.63%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.89%	12.70%	-2.81%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.47%	12.47%	-3.00%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.47%	12.47%	-3.00%

FDAT vs. CLSM - Expense Ratio Comparison

FDAT has a 0.74% expense ratio, which is lower than CLSM's 0.82% expense ratio.

Dividends

FDAT vs. CLSM - Dividend Comparison

FDAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.64%, more than CLSM's 0.75% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
CLSM Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF	0.75%	0.90%	2.13%	2.58%	3.17%	0.59%
FDAT Tactical Advantage ETF	5.64%	4.77%	8.99%	1.58%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FDAT and CLSM in my portfolio?

FDAT and CLSM have a correlation of 0.83, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FDAT or CLSM?

CLSM has higher volatility (3.58%) compared to FDAT (3.31%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FDAT dropped -8.20% vs CLSM's -27.77%.

Which ETF is better, FDAT or CLSM?

On 3-year performance, CLSM leads with 13.75% vs 9.02% for FDAT. On fees, FDAT is cheaper at 0.74% per year. On volatility, FDAT has been the lower-risk option at 3.31%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FDAT or CLSM?

Over the 3-year period, CLSM has performed better with a 13.75% return vs 9.02%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FDAT or CLSM?

FDAT is cheaper with a 0.74% expense ratio, compared with 0.82% for CLSM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FDAT or CLSM?

FDAT has the higher dividend yield at 5.64%, compared with 0.75% for CLSM.

What is the main difference between FDAT and CLSM?

FDAT is categorized as Diversified Portfolio, while CLSM is Tactical Allocation. They also come from different issuers: Tactical Funds and Cabana. Their fees differ too: 0.74% for FDAT and 0.82% for CLSM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CLSM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.71 vs 1.18), 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.