GRPM vs. CSHP
GRPM (Invesco S&P MidCap 400® GARP ETF) and CSHP (iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GRPM is a Mid Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the S&P MidCap 400® GARP Index, while CSHP is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by iShares. GRPM is passively managed, while CSHP is actively managed. Over the past year, GRPM returned 19.03% vs 3.96% for CSHP. At a 0.05 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. GRPM charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for CSHP.
Performance
GRPM vs. CSHP - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, GRPM achieves a 5.85% return, which is significantly higher than CSHP's 1.86% return.
GRPM
- 1D
- -0.35%
- 1M
- -0.01%
- YTD
- 5.85%
- 6M
- 3.60%
- 1Y
- 19.03%
- 3Y*
- 14.38%
- 5Y*
- 7.89%
- 10Y*
- 11.20%
CSHP
- 1D
- -0.01%
- 1M
- 0.30%
- YTD
- 1.86%
- 6M
- 1.93%
- 1Y
- 3.96%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
GRPM vs. CSHP - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
GRPM Invesco S&P MidCap 400® GARP ETF | 5.85% | 7.81% | -6.64% |
CSHP iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF | 1.86% | 4.10% | 2.24% |
Correlation
The correlation between GRPM 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 | 0.05 |
The correlation between GRPM and CSHP shifts across timeframes, from -0.11 (1 year) to 0.05 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
GRPM vs. CSHP — Risk / Return Rank
GRPM
CSHP
GRPM vs. CSHP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P MidCap 400® GARP ETF (GRPM) 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.
| GRPM | CSHP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -10.04 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -26.53 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.21 | 6.67 | -5.47 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.51 | 65.84 | -63.34 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 7.36 | 395.75 | -388.39 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
GRPM vs. CSHP - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GRPM drawdown since its inception was -43.12%, which is greater than CSHP's maximum drawdown of -0.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GRPM and CSHP.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| GRPM | CSHP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -43.12% | -0.08% | -43.04% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -7.62% | -0.06% | -7.56% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -28.09% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -28.09% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -43.12% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.76% | -0.01% | -2.75% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -5.69% | -0.00% | -5.69% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.59% | 0.01% | +2.58% |
Volatility
GRPM vs. CSHP - Volatility Comparison
Invesco S&P MidCap 400® GARP ETF (GRPM) has a higher volatility of 3.76% compared to iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF (CSHP) at 0.15%. This indicates that GRPM'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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| GRPM | CSHP | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.76% | 0.15% | +3.61% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 10.41% | 0.27% | +10.14% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 16.18% | 0.36% | +15.82% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 20.88% | 0.41% | +20.47% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 22.26% | 0.41% | +21.85% |
GRPM vs. CSHP - Expense Ratio Comparison
GRPM has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than CSHP's 0.20% expense ratio.
Dividends
GRPM vs. CSHP - Dividend Comparison
GRPM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.14%, less than CSHP's 3.91% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CSHP iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF | 3.91% | 5.39% | 1.96% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
GRPM Invesco S&P MidCap 400® GARP ETF | 1.14% | 1.19% | 0.95% | 0.96% | 1.28% | 0.92% | 1.16% | 1.25% | 1.50% | 1.14% | 1.00% | 1.43% |
Frequently Asked Questions
GRPM 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.
GRPM has higher volatility (3.76%) compared to CSHP (0.15%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GRPM dropped -43.12% vs CSHP's -0.08%.
On 1-year performance, GRPM leads with 19.03% 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.
Over the 1-year period, GRPM has performed better with a 19.03% return vs 3.96%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
CSHP is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for GRPM.
CSHP has the higher dividend yield at 3.91%, compared with 1.14% for GRPM.
GRPM is categorized as Mid Cap Blend Equities, while CSHP is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for GRPM and 0.20% for CSHP.
CSHP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (11.22 vs 1.18), 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.
Find the right allocation for GRPM 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