HFGM vs. CLSE

Last updated Aug 1, 2026

HFGM (Unlimited HFGM Global Macro ETF) and CLSE (Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF) are both Long-Short funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, HFGM returned 23.08% vs 42.34% for CLSE. Their 0.52 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. HFGM charges 0.95%/yr vs 1.52%/yr for CLSE.

Performance

HFGM vs. CLSE - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Unlimited HFGM Global Macro ETF (HFGM) and Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF (CLSE). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, HFGM achieves a 5.58% return, which is significantly lower than CLSE's 24.37% return.

HFGM

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.73%
• 6M: -6.05%
• YTD: 5.58%
• 1Y: 23.08%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 25.39%

CLSE

• 1D: 0.24%
• 1M: 0.65%
• 6M: 20.32%
• YTD: 24.37%
• 1Y: 42.34%
• 3Y*: 29.42%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 20.44%

*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)
CLSE Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF	$15.17M	$11.74M	$9.80M
HFGM Unlimited HFGM Global Macro ETF	$1.39M	$1.17M	$1.73M

HFGM vs. CLSE - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
HFGM Unlimited HFGM Global Macro ETF	5.58%	26.88%
CLSE Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF	24.37%	30.04%

Correlation

The correlation between HFGM and CLSE is 0.57, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.57
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 15, 2025	0.52

The correlation between HFGM and CLSE has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.52 to 0.57 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

HFGM vs. CLSE — Risk / Return Rank

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

HFGM

HFGM Risk / Return Rank: 39
HFGM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
HFGM Sortino Ratio Rank: 38
HFGM Omega Ratio Rank: 39
HFGM Calmar Ratio Rank: 43
HFGM Martin Ratio Rank: 37

CLSE

CLSE Risk / Return Rank: 96
CLSE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
CLSE Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
CLSE Omega Ratio Rank: 95
CLSE Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
CLSE Martin Ratio Rank: 97

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.

HFGM vs. CLSE - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Unlimited HFGM Global Macro ETF (HFGM) and Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF (CLSE). 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.

	HFGM	CLSE	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.99	3.09	-2.10
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.44	4.23	-2.79
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.19	1.53	-0.35
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.54	8.77	-7.24
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.83	29.59	-25.77

HFGM vs. CLSE - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HFGM Sharpe Ratio is 0.99, which is lower than the CLSE Sharpe Ratio of 3.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HFGM and CLSE, 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

HFGM vs. CLSE - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HFGM drawdown since its inception was -15.09%, smaller than the maximum CLSE drawdown of -16.45%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HFGM and CLSE.

Drawdown Indicators

	HFGM	CLSE	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.09%	-16.45%	+1.36%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.09%	-4.85%	-10.24%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-16.45%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-13.00%	-1.34%	-11.66%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.75%	-3.52%	-0.23%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.05%	1.44%	+4.61%

Volatility

HFGM vs. CLSE - Volatility Comparison

Unlimited HFGM Global Macro ETF (HFGM) has a higher volatility of 5.37% compared to Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF (CLSE) at 3.24%. This indicates that HFGM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CLSE based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	HFGM	CLSE	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.37%	3.24%	+2.13%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.11%	10.80%	+6.31%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	23.52%	13.79%	+9.73%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.66%	13.86%	+7.80%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.66%	13.86%	+7.80%

HFGM vs. CLSE - Expense Ratio Comparison

HFGM has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is lower than CLSE's 1.52% expense ratio.

Dividends

HFGM vs. CLSE - Dividend Comparison

HFGM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 10.64%, more than CLSE's 0.77% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
CLSE Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF	0.77%	0.95%	0.93%	1.21%	0.85%
HFGM Unlimited HFGM Global Macro ETF	10.64%	11.23%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both HFGM and CLSE in my portfolio?

HFGM and CLSE have a correlation of 0.57, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, HFGM or CLSE?

HFGM has higher volatility (5.37%) compared to CLSE (3.24%). In terms of maximum drawdown, HFGM dropped -15.09% vs CLSE's -16.45%.

Which ETF is better, HFGM or CLSE?

On 1-year performance, CLSE leads with 42.34% vs 23.08% for HFGM. On fees, HFGM is cheaper at 0.95% per year. On volatility, CLSE has been the lower-risk option at 3.24%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, HFGM or CLSE?

Over the 1-year period, CLSE has performed better with a 42.34% return vs 23.08%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, HFGM or CLSE?

HFGM is cheaper with a 0.95% expense ratio, compared with 1.52% for CLSE.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, HFGM or CLSE?

HFGM has the higher dividend yield at 10.64%, compared with 0.77% for CLSE.

What is the main difference between HFGM and CLSE?

They also come from different issuers: Unlimited and Convergence. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for HFGM and 1.52% for CLSE.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CLSE currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.09 vs 0.99), 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.