FLM vs. CSHP

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

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. Their -0.01 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. FLM charges 0.70%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for CSHP.

Performance

FLM vs. CSHP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF (FLM) and iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF (CSHP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

FLM

• 1D: —
• 1M: —
• 6M: —
• YTD: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: —

CSHP

• 1D: 0.15%
• 1M: 0.50%
• 6M: 2.23%
• YTD: 2.53%
• 1Y: 4.19%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 4.37%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
CSHP iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF	$14.42M	$7.30M	$2.63M

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	0.90%

Correlation

The correlation between FLM and CSHP is -0.01, meaning there was essentially no consistent relationship between their historical price movements. Each responded to its own set of market drivers.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 5, 2026	-0.01

Return for Risk

FLM vs. CSHP — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

FLM

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

CSHP

CSHP Risk / Return Rank: 98
CSHP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 98
CSHP Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
CSHP Omega Ratio Rank: 99
CSHP Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
CSHP Martin Ratio Rank: 99

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

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 ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	3.67	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	6.65	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	2.79	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	10.90	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	68.37	—

Drawdowns

Drawdown Indicators

	FLM	CSHP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	—	-0.39%	—
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-0.39%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	—	-0.12%	—
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	—	-0.01%	—
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	0.06%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	FLM	CSHP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	1.11%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	1.12%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	1.15%	—
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	—	0.86%	—
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	—	0.86%	—

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 4.10%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
CSHP iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF	4.10%	5.39%	1.96%
FLM First Trust Global Engineering and Construction ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLM and CSHP in my portfolio?

FLM and CSHP have a correlation of -0.01, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, FLM or CSHP?

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.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLM or CSHP?

CSHP is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for FLM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FLM or CSHP?

CSHP has the higher dividend yield at 4.10%, compared with 0.00% for FLM.

What is the main difference between FLM and CSHP?

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.