GMOD vs. CLSM

Last updated Jun 27, 2026

GMOD (GMO Dynamic Allocation ETF) and CLSM (Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF) are both Tactical Allocation funds. GMOD is actively managed, while CLSM is passively managed. A 0.80 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. GMOD charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.82%/yr for CLSM.

Performance

GMOD vs. CLSM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GMO Dynamic Allocation ETF (GMOD) 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, GMOD achieves a 7.06% return, which is significantly lower than CLSM's 16.05% return.

GMOD

• 1D: 0.20%
• 1M: -0.18%
• YTD: 7.06%
• 6M: 6.66%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CLSM

• 1D: -0.33%
• 1M: -1.76%
• YTD: 16.05%
• 6M: 13.97%
• 1Y: 26.77%
• 3Y*: 12.49%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

GMOD vs. CLSM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
GMOD GMO Dynamic Allocation ETF	7.06%	4.35%
CLSM Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF	16.05%	1.27%

Correlation

The correlation between GMOD and CLSM is 0.80, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 14, 2025	0.80

Return for Risk

GMOD vs. CLSM — Risk / Return Rank

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

GMOD

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

CLSM

CLSM Risk / Return Rank: 70
CLSM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
CLSM Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
CLSM Omega Ratio Rank: 69
CLSM Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
CLSM Martin Ratio Rank: 75

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.

GMOD vs. CLSM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GMO Dynamic Allocation ETF (GMOD) 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.

	GMOD	CLSM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	1.93	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	2.59	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.35	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	3.16	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	12.13	—

Drawdowns

GMOD vs. CLSM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GMOD drawdown since its inception was -6.50%, smaller than the maximum CLSM drawdown of -27.77%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GMOD and CLSM.

Drawdown Indicators

	GMOD	CLSM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-6.50%	-27.77%	+21.27%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-8.50%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-14.60%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.85%	-4.02%	+3.17%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.13%	-16.31%	+15.18%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	2.21%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	GMOD	CLSM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	6.40%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	12.05%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.00%	13.91%	-4.91%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.00%	12.69%	-3.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.00%	12.69%	-3.69%

GMOD vs. CLSM - Expense Ratio Comparison

GMOD has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than CLSM's 0.82% expense ratio.

Dividends

GMOD vs. CLSM - Dividend Comparison

GMOD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.87%, more than CLSM's 0.77% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
CLSM Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF	0.77%	0.90%	2.13%	2.58%	3.17%	0.59%
GMOD GMO Dynamic Allocation ETF	0.87%	0.93%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GMOD and CLSM in my portfolio?

GMOD and CLSM have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, GMOD or CLSM?

On fees, GMOD is cheaper at 0.50% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, GMOD or CLSM?

GMOD is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.82% for CLSM.

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

GMOD has the higher dividend yield at 0.87%, compared with 0.77% for CLSM.

What is the main difference between GMOD and CLSM?

They also come from different issuers: GMO and Cabana. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for GMOD and 0.82% for CLSM.