FTGS vs. CSHP

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

FTGS (First Trust Growth Strength ETF) and CSHP (iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FTGS is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the The Growth Strength Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while CSHP is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by iShares. FTGS is passively managed, while CSHP is actively managed. Over the past year, FTGS returned 12.35% vs 3.96% for CSHP. At a 0.03 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FTGS charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for CSHP.

Performance

FTGS vs. CSHP - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FTGS achieves a 3.96% return, which is significantly higher than CSHP's 1.86% return.

FTGS

• 1D: -0.65%
• 1M: 0.08%
• YTD: 3.96%
• 6M: 2.63%
• 1Y: 12.35%
• 3Y*: 17.47%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CSHP

• 1D: -0.01%
• 1M: 0.30%
• YTD: 1.86%
• 6M: 1.93%
• 1Y: 3.96%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FTGS vs. CSHP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FTGS First Trust Growth Strength ETF	3.96%	12.78%	1.66%
CSHP iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF	1.86%	4.10%	2.24%

Correlation

The correlation between FTGS and CSHP is -0.11, 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	-0.11
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 18, 2024	0.03

The correlation between FTGS and CSHP shifts across timeframes, from -0.11 (1 year) to 0.03 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

FTGS vs. CSHP — Risk / Return Rank

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

FTGS

FTGS Risk / Return Rank: 27
FTGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 26
FTGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 26
FTGS Omega Ratio Rank: 23
FTGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
FTGS Martin Ratio Rank: 31

CSHP

CSHP Risk / Return Rank: 99
CSHP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
CSHP Sortino Ratio Rank: 99
CSHP Omega Ratio Rank: 99
CSHP Calmar Ratio Rank: 100
CSHP Martin Ratio Rank: 100

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.

FTGS vs. CSHP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Growth Strength ETF (FTGS) 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.

	FTGS	CSHP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.92	11.22	-10.30
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.37	28.31	-26.93
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.16	6.67	-5.51
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.31	65.84	-64.53
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.38	395.75	-391.37

FTGS vs. CSHP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FTGS Sharpe Ratio is 0.92, which is lower than the CSHP Sharpe Ratio of 11.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FTGS and CSHP, 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

FTGS vs. CSHP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FTGS drawdown since its inception was -19.99%, which is greater than CSHP's maximum drawdown of -0.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FTGS and CSHP.

Drawdown Indicators

	FTGS	CSHP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.99%	-0.08%	-19.91%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.47%	-0.06%	-9.41%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.99%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.84%	-0.01%	-2.83%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.74%	-0.00%	-2.74%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.83%	0.01%	+2.82%

Volatility

FTGS vs. CSHP - Volatility Comparison

First Trust Growth Strength ETF (FTGS) has a higher volatility of 4.32% compared to iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF (CSHP) at 0.15%. This indicates that FTGS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CSHP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FTGS	CSHP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.32%	0.15%	+4.17%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.64%	0.27%	+10.37%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.50%	0.36%	+13.14%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.12%	0.41%	+16.71%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.12%	0.41%	+16.71%

FTGS vs. CSHP - Expense Ratio Comparison

FTGS has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than CSHP's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

FTGS vs. CSHP - Dividend Comparison

FTGS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.09%, less than CSHP's 3.91% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
CSHP iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF	3.91%	5.39%	1.96%	0.00%	0.00%
FTGS First Trust Growth Strength ETF	0.09%	0.16%	0.39%	0.62%	0.21%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FTGS and CSHP in my portfolio?

FTGS and CSHP have a correlation of -0.11, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FTGS or CSHP?

FTGS has higher volatility (4.32%) compared to CSHP (0.15%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FTGS dropped -19.99% vs CSHP's -0.08%.

Which ETF is better, FTGS or CSHP?

On 1-year performance, FTGS leads with 12.35% vs 3.96% for CSHP. On fees, CSHP is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, CSHP has been the lower-risk option at 0.15%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FTGS or CSHP?

Over the 1-year period, FTGS has performed better with a 12.35% return vs 3.96%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FTGS or CSHP?

CSHP is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for FTGS.

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

CSHP has the higher dividend yield at 3.91%, compared with 0.09% for FTGS.

What is the main difference between FTGS and CSHP?

FTGS is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while CSHP is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for FTGS and 0.20% for CSHP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CSHP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (11.22 vs 0.92), 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.