FFLS vs. CSM

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FFLS (The Future Fund Long/Short ETF) and CSM (Proshares Large Cap Core Plus) are both Long-Short funds. FFLS is actively managed, while CSM is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, FFLS returned 8.23%/yr vs 20.69%/yr for CSM. A 0.63 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FFLS charges 1.75%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for CSM.

Performance

FFLS vs. CSM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in The Future Fund Long/Short ETF (FFLS) and Proshares Large Cap Core Plus (CSM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FFLS achieves a -2.39% return, which is significantly lower than CSM's 6.09% return.

FFLS

• 1D: -0.79%
• 1M: -0.64%
• YTD: -2.39%
• 6M: -2.29%
• 1Y: -2.63%
• 3Y*: 8.23%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CSM

• 1D: -1.20%
• 1M: -1.28%
• YTD: 6.09%
• 6M: 5.46%
• 1Y: 24.27%
• 3Y*: 20.69%
• 5Y*: 12.67%
• 10Y*: 14.43%

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

FFLS vs. CSM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FFLS The Future Fund Long/Short ETF	-2.39%	7.49%	17.71%	0.79%
CSM Proshares Large Cap Core Plus	6.09%	21.84%	22.09%	9.95%

Correlation

The correlation between FFLS and CSM is 0.46, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.46
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.63
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 21, 2023	0.63

The correlation between FFLS and CSM shifts across timeframes, from 0.46 (1 year) to 0.63 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FFLS vs. CSM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FFLS	CSM
Technology	17.7%	33.0%
Industrials	14.8%	9.6%
Healthcare	10.2%	9.2%
Communication Services	6.4%	8.9%
Energy	4.8%	2.9%
Real Estate	2.6%	3.6%
Consumer Cyclical	2.3%	9.8%
Consumer Defensive	1.6%	5.2%
Basic Materials	-	1.9%
Utilities	-	3.9%
Financial Services	-7.7%	12.1%

Return for Risk

FFLS vs. CSM — Risk / Return Rank

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

FFLS

FFLS Risk / Return Rank: 6
FFLS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6
FFLS Sortino Ratio Rank: 6
FFLS Omega Ratio Rank: 6
FFLS Calmar Ratio Rank: 7
FFLS Martin Ratio Rank: 7

CSM

CSM Risk / Return Rank: 60
CSM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
CSM Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
CSM Omega Ratio Rank: 59
CSM Calmar Ratio Rank: 56
CSM Martin Ratio Rank: 63

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. CSM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for The Future Fund Long/Short ETF (FFLS) and Proshares Large Cap Core Plus (CSM). 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.

	FFLS	CSM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.27	1.97	-2.24
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.32	2.71	-3.03
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.96	1.34	-0.38
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.24	2.59	-2.83
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.50	10.87	-11.37

FFLS vs. CSM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FFLS Sharpe Ratio is -0.27, which is lower than the CSM Sharpe Ratio of 1.97. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FFLS and CSM, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

FFLS vs. CSM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FFLS drawdown since its inception was -11.05%, smaller than the maximum CSM drawdown of -36.11%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FFLS and CSM.

Drawdown Indicators

	FFLS	CSM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.05%	-36.11%	+25.06%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.05%	-9.40%	-1.65%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-11.05%	-18.30%	+7.25%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-23.82%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-36.11%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.99%	-3.47%	-3.52%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.17%	-4.03%	+0.86%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.30%	2.24%	+3.06%

Volatility

FFLS vs. CSM - Volatility Comparison

The Future Fund Long/Short ETF (FFLS) and Proshares Large Cap Core Plus (CSM) have volatilities of 4.42% and 4.50%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FFLS	CSM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.42%	4.50%	-0.08%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.92%	9.57%	-1.65%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.68%	12.42%	-2.74%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.40%	17.19%	-5.79%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.40%	18.39%	-6.99%

FFLS vs. CSM - Expense Ratio Comparison

FFLS has a 1.75% expense ratio, which is higher than CSM's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

FFLS vs. CSM - Dividend Comparison

FFLS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.74%, more than CSM's 1.03% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CSM Proshares Large Cap Core Plus	1.03%	1.04%	1.06%	1.17%	1.37%	0.78%	1.21%	1.41%	1.54%	1.28%	1.49%	1.67%
FFLS The Future Fund Long/Short ETF	6.74%	6.58%	3.34%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FFLS and CSM in my portfolio?

FFLS and CSM have a correlation of 0.46, 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 CSM?

CSM has higher volatility (4.50%) compared to FFLS (4.42%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FFLS dropped -11.05% vs CSM's -36.11%.

Which ETF is better, FFLS or CSM?

On 3-year performance, CSM leads with 20.69% vs 8.23% for FFLS. On fees, CSM is cheaper at 0.45% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FFLS or CSM?

Over the 3-year period, CSM has performed better with a 20.69% return vs 8.23%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FFLS or CSM?

CSM is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 1.75% for FFLS.

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

FFLS has the higher dividend yield at 6.74%, compared with 1.03% for CSM.

What is the main difference between FFLS and CSM?

They also come from different issuers: The Future Fund and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 1.75% for FFLS and 0.45% for CSM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CSM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.97 vs -0.27), 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.