FLM vs. CSHP
FLM (First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF) and CSHP (iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FLM is a Building & Construction fund tracking the ISE Global Engineering & Construction Index, while CSHP is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by iShares. FLM is passively managed, while CSHP is actively managed. At a correlation of -0.13, they often move in opposite directions. FLM charges 0.70%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for CSHP.
Performance
FLM vs. CSHP - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
FLM
- 1D
- -4.55%
- 1M
- —
- YTD
- —
- 6M
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
CSHP
- 1D
- -0.03%
- 1M
- 0.27%
- YTD
- 1.83%
- 6M
- 1.92%
- 1Y
- 3.94%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
FLM vs. CSHP - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
FLM First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF | -4.55% |
CSHP iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF | 0.21% |
Correlation
The correlation between FLM and CSHP is -0.13, 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 5, 2026 | -0.13 |
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
FLM vs. CSHP — Risk / Return Rank
FLM
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
CSHP
FLM vs. CSHP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF (FLM) and iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF (CSHP). 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.
| FLM | CSHP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 6.46 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 65.45 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 381.67 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
FLM vs. CSHP - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum FLM drawdown since its inception was -4.55%, which is greater than CSHP's maximum drawdown of -0.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLM and CSHP.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| FLM | CSHP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -4.55% | -0.08% | -4.47% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -0.06% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -4.55% | -0.04% | -4.51% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.27% | -0.00% | -2.27% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 0.01% | — |
Volatility
FLM vs. CSHP - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| FLM | CSHP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 0.16% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 0.27% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 51.02% | 0.36% | +50.66% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 51.02% | 0.41% | +50.61% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 51.02% | 0.41% | +50.61% |
FLM vs. CSHP - Expense Ratio Comparison
FLM has a 0.70% expense ratio, which is higher than CSHP's 0.20% expense ratio.
Dividends
FLM vs. CSHP - Dividend Comparison
FLM has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CSHP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.91%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 |
|---|---|---|---|
CSHP iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF | 3.91% | 5.39% | 1.96% |
FLM First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
FLM and CSHP have a correlation of -0.13, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, CSHP is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
CSHP is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for FLM.
CSHP has the higher dividend yield at 3.91%, compared with 0.00% for FLM.
FLM is categorized as Building & Construction, while CSHP is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.70% for FLM and 0.20% for CSHP.
Find the right allocation for FLM and CSHP
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