FFLS vs. CLSE

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FFLS (The Future Fund Long/Short ETF) and CLSE (Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF) are both Long-Short funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, FFLS returned -0.45% vs 50.91% for CLSE. At a 0.46 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FFLS charges 1.75%/yr vs 1.56%/yr for CLSE.

Performance

FFLS vs. CLSE - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in The Future Fund Long/Short ETF (FFLS) 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, FFLS achieves a -0.26% return, which is significantly lower than CLSE's 25.76% return.

FFLS

• 1D: -0.63%
• 1M: 2.89%
• YTD: -0.26%
• 6M: -0.66%
• 1Y: -0.45%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CLSE

• 1D: 0.35%
• 1M: 9.28%
• YTD: 25.76%
• 6M: 28.57%
• 1Y: 50.91%
• 3Y*: 32.39%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FFLS vs. CLSE - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FFLS The Future Fund Long/Short ETF	-0.26%	7.49%	17.71%	2.03%
CLSE Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF	25.76%	20.44%	35.54%	11.28%

Correlation

The correlation between FFLS and CLSE is 0.26, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.26
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 22, 2023	0.46

Over the past year, the correlation between FFLS and CLSE has dropped to 0.26 - well below their long-term average of 0.46, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

FFLS vs. CLSE - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FFLS	CLSE
Technology	14.4%	33.2%
Healthcare	10.1%	6.5%
Industrials	8.4%	2.2%
Communication Services	7.2%	6.1%
Consumer Cyclical	6.9%	6.2%
Energy	4.8%	2.7%
Real Estate	2.6%	1.7%
Consumer Defensive	1.6%	0.9%
Basic Materials	-	1.5%
Utilities	-	1.7%
Financial Services	-4.2%	-2.5%

Return for Risk

FFLS vs. CLSE — Risk / Return Rank

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

FFLS

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

CLSE

CLSE Risk / Return Rank: 95
CLSE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
CLSE Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
CLSE Omega Ratio Rank: 93
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.

FFLS vs. CLSE - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for The Future Fund Long/Short ETF (FFLS) 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.

	FFLS	CLSE	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.05	3.84	-3.89
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.01	5.20	-5.21
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.00	1.67	-0.67
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.04	10.55	-10.59
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.09	39.58	-39.66
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FFLS vs. CLSE - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FFLS Sharpe Ratio is -0.05, which is lower than the CLSE Sharpe Ratio of 3.84. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FFLS and CLSE, 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

	FFLS	CLSE	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.05	3.84	-3.89
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.80	1.59	-0.79

Drawdowns

FFLS vs. CLSE - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FFLS drawdown since its inception was -11.05%, smaller than the maximum CLSE drawdown of -16.45%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FFLS and CLSE.

Drawdown Indicators

	FFLS	CLSE	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.05%	-16.45%	+5.40%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.05%	-4.85%	-6.20%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-16.45%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.96%	0.00%	-4.96%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.09%	-3.59%	+0.50%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.07%	1.29%	+3.78%

Volatility

FFLS vs. CLSE - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for The Future Fund Long/Short ETF (FFLS) is 3.54%, while Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF (CLSE) has a volatility of 4.31%. This indicates that FFLS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CLSE based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FFLS	CLSE	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.54%	4.31%	-0.77%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.92%	10.21%	-3.29%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.94%	13.32%	-4.38%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.23%	13.88%	-2.65%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.23%	13.88%	-2.65%

FFLS vs. CLSE - Expense Ratio Comparison

FFLS has a 1.75% expense ratio, which is higher than CLSE's 1.56% expense ratio.

Dividends

FFLS vs. CLSE - Dividend Comparison

FFLS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.59%, more 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%
FFLS The Future Fund Long/Short ETF	6.59%	6.58%	3.34%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FFLS and CLSE in my portfolio?

FFLS and CLSE have a correlation of 0.26, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FFLS or CLSE?

CLSE has higher volatility (4.31%) compared to FFLS (3.54%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FFLS dropped -11.05% vs CLSE's -16.45%.

Which ETF is better, FFLS or CLSE?

On 1-year performance, CLSE leads with 50.91% vs -0.45% for FFLS. On fees, CLSE is cheaper at 1.56% per year. On volatility, FFLS has been the lower-risk option at 3.54%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FFLS or CLSE?

Over the 1-year period, CLSE has performed better with a 50.91% return vs -0.45%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FFLS or CLSE?

CLSE is cheaper with a 1.56% expense ratio, compared with 1.75% for FFLS.

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

FFLS has the higher dividend yield at 6.59%, compared with 0.76% for CLSE.

What is the main difference between FFLS and CLSE?

They also come from different issuers: The Future Fund and Convergence Investment Partners. Their fees differ too: 1.75% for FFLS and 1.56% for CLSE.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CLSE currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.84 vs -0.05), 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.