FGLS.NEO vs. CLIX
FGLS.NEO (Fidelity Global Value Long/Short Alternative ETF) and CLIX (ProShares Long Online/Short Stores ETF) are both Long-Short funds. FGLS.NEO is actively managed, while CLIX is passively managed. Over the past year, FGLS.NEO returned 13.07% vs 13.45% for CLIX. At a correlation of -0.30, they often move in opposite directions. FGLS.NEO charges 1.51%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for CLIX.
Performance
FGLS.NEO vs. CLIX - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Different Trading Currencies
FGLS.NEO is traded in CAD, while CLIX is traded in USD. To make them comparable, the CLIX values have been converted to CAD using the latest available exchange rates.
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, FGLS.NEO achieves a 7.38% return, which is significantly higher than CLIX's -0.97% return.
FGLS.NEO
- 1D
- -0.97%
- 1M
- 15.06%
- 6M
- 9.82%
- YTD
- 7.38%
- 1Y
- 13.07%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
CLIX
- 1D
- -1.24%
- 1M
- 5.61%
- 6M
- -3.51%
- YTD
- -0.97%
- 1Y
- 13.45%
- 3Y*
- 19.07%
- 5Y*
- -3.98%
- 10Y*
- —
FGLS.NEO vs. CLIX - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
FGLS.NEO Fidelity Global Value Long/Short Alternative ETF | 7.38% | 8.38% | -21.20% |
CLIX ProShares Long Online/Short Stores ETF | -0.97% | 26.75% | 39.85% |
Correlation
The correlation between FGLS.NEO and CLIX is -0.36, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.36 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 1, 2024 | -0.30 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
FGLS.NEO vs. CLIX — Risk / Return Rank
FGLS.NEO
CLIX
FGLS.NEO vs. CLIX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Global Value Long/Short Alternative ETF (FGLS.NEO) and ProShares Long Online/Short Stores ETF (CLIX). 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.
| FGLS.NEO | CLIX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.14 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.08 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.11 | 1.12 | -0.01 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.62 | 0.63 | -0.01 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 1.27 | 1.59 | -0.31 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
FGLS.NEO vs. CLIX - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum FGLS.NEO drawdown since its inception was -25.89%, smaller than the maximum CLIX drawdown of -71.70%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FGLS.NEO and CLIX.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| FGLS.NEO | CLIX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -25.89% | -71.70% | +45.81% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -21.12% | -21.32% | +0.20% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -21.32% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -63.89% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -8.41% | -36.92% | +28.51% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -14.43% | -33.41% | +18.98% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 10.30% | 8.50% | +1.80% |
Volatility
FGLS.NEO vs. CLIX - Volatility Comparison
Fidelity Global Value Long/Short Alternative ETF (FGLS.NEO) has a higher volatility of 11.12% compared to ProShares Long Online/Short Stores ETF (CLIX) at 6.08%. This indicates that FGLS.NEO's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CLIX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| FGLS.NEO | CLIX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 11.12% | 6.08% | +5.04% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 21.09% | 16.96% | +4.13% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 27.48% | 21.88% | +5.60% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 23.98% | 27.32% | -3.34% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 23.98% | 26.63% | -2.65% |
FGLS.NEO vs. CLIX - Expense Ratio Comparison
FGLS.NEO has a 1.51% expense ratio, which is higher than CLIX's 0.65% expense ratio.
Dividends
FGLS.NEO vs. CLIX - Dividend Comparison
FGLS.NEO has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CLIX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.54%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CLIX ProShares Long Online/Short Stores ETF | 0.54% | 0.46% | 0.46% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 1.33% |
FGLS.NEO Fidelity Global Value Long/Short Alternative ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
FGLS.NEO and CLIX have a correlation of -0.36, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, CLIX is cheaper at 0.65% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
CLIX is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 1.51% for FGLS.NEO.
They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 1.51% for FGLS.NEO and 0.65% for CLIX.
Find the right allocation for FGLS.NEO and CLIX
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer