GHTA vs. CLSM

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

GHTA (Goose Hollow Tactical Allocation ETF) and CLSM (Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GHTA is a Diversified Portfolio fund actively managed by Goose Hollow, while CLSM is a Tactical Allocation fund tracking the Actively Managed. GHTA is actively managed, while CLSM is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, GHTA returned 8.97%/yr vs 14.07%/yr for CLSM. At a 0.42 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GHTA charges 1.21%/yr vs 0.82%/yr for CLSM.

Performance

GHTA vs. CLSM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Goose Hollow Tactical Allocation ETF (GHTA) and Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF (CLSM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GHTA achieves a 1.97% return, which is significantly lower than CLSM's 18.94% return.

GHTA

• 1D: -0.50%
• 1M: -0.17%
• YTD: 1.97%
• 6M: 2.17%
• 1Y: 6.36%
• 3Y*: 8.97%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CLSM

• 1D: -0.24%
• 1M: 1.70%
• YTD: 18.94%
• 6M: 17.85%
• 1Y: 32.91%
• 3Y*: 14.07%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GHTA vs. CLSM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
GHTA Goose Hollow Tactical Allocation ETF	1.97%	10.06%	4.78%	14.10%	1.99%	-1.42%
CLSM Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF	18.94%	15.32%	1.87%	3.78%	-23.23%	0.57%

Correlation

The correlation between GHTA and CLSM is 0.37, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.37
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.43
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 17, 2021	0.42

Return for Risk

GHTA vs. CLSM — Risk / Return Rank

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

GHTA

GHTA Risk / Return Rank: 22
GHTA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 23
GHTA Sortino Ratio Rank: 23
GHTA Omega Ratio Rank: 22
GHTA Calmar Ratio Rank: 22
GHTA Martin Ratio Rank: 21

CLSM

CLSM Risk / Return Rank: 77
CLSM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
CLSM Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
CLSM Omega Ratio Rank: 78
CLSM Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
CLSM Martin Ratio Rank: 80

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.

GHTA vs. CLSM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Goose Hollow Tactical Allocation ETF (GHTA) and Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF (CLSM). 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.

	GHTA	CLSM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.81	2.40	-1.59
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.23	3.16	-1.92
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.15	1.44	-0.29
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.03	3.89	-2.86
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.52	15.29	-12.77

GHTA vs. CLSM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GHTA Sharpe Ratio is 0.81, which is lower than the CLSM Sharpe Ratio of 2.40. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GHTA and CLSM, 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

GHTA vs. CLSM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GHTA drawdown since its inception was -13.92%, smaller than the maximum CLSM drawdown of -27.77%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GHTA and CLSM.

Drawdown Indicators

	GHTA	CLSM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.92%	-27.77%	+13.85%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.18%	-8.50%	+2.32%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-13.91%	-14.60%	+0.69%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.89%	-1.63%	-1.26%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.51%	-16.35%	+12.84%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.53%	2.16%	+0.37%

Volatility

GHTA vs. CLSM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Goose Hollow Tactical Allocation ETF (GHTA) is 1.54%, while Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF (CLSM) has a volatility of 6.11%. This indicates that GHTA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CLSM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GHTA	CLSM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.54%	6.11%	-4.57%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.76%	11.89%	-6.13%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.92%	13.80%	-5.88%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.90%	12.68%	-0.78%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.90%	12.68%	-0.78%

GHTA vs. CLSM - Expense Ratio Comparison

GHTA has a 1.21% expense ratio, which is higher than CLSM's 0.82% expense ratio.

Dividends

GHTA vs. CLSM - Dividend Comparison

GHTA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.76%, more than CLSM's 0.76% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
CLSM Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF	0.76%	0.90%	2.13%	2.58%	3.17%	0.59%
GHTA Goose Hollow Tactical Allocation ETF	3.76%	3.84%	2.46%	2.32%	0.38%	0.41%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GHTA and CLSM in my portfolio?

GHTA and CLSM have a correlation of 0.37, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GHTA or CLSM?

CLSM has higher volatility (6.11%) compared to GHTA (1.54%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GHTA dropped -13.92% vs CLSM's -27.77%.

Which ETF is better, GHTA or CLSM?

On 3-year performance, CLSM leads with 14.07% vs 8.97% for GHTA. On fees, CLSM is cheaper at 0.82% per year. On volatility, GHTA has been the lower-risk option at 1.54%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GHTA or CLSM?

Over the 3-year period, CLSM has performed better with a 14.07% return vs 8.97%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GHTA or CLSM?

CLSM is cheaper with a 0.82% expense ratio, compared with 1.21% for GHTA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GHTA or CLSM?

GHTA has the higher dividend yield at 3.76%, compared with 0.76% for CLSM.

What is the main difference between GHTA and CLSM?

GHTA is categorized as Diversified Portfolio, while CLSM is Tactical Allocation. They also come from different issuers: Goose Hollow and Cabana. Their fees differ too: 1.21% for GHTA and 0.82% for CLSM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CLSM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.40 vs 0.81), 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.