HIPS vs. CLSM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

HIPS (GraniteShares HIPS US High Income ETF) and CLSM (Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - HIPS is a Diversified Portfolio fund tracking the TFMS HIPS Index, while CLSM is a Tactical Allocation fund tracking the Actively Managed. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, HIPS returned 10.94%/yr vs 13.75%/yr for CLSM. At a 0.44 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. HIPS charges 3.19%/yr vs 0.82%/yr for CLSM.

Performance

HIPS vs. CLSM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GraniteShares HIPS US High Income ETF (HIPS) 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, HIPS achieves a 3.28% return, which is significantly lower than CLSM's 20.45% return.

HIPS

• 1D: -0.79%
• 1M: -3.49%
• YTD: 3.28%
• 6M: 2.30%
• 1Y: 6.18%
• 3Y*: 10.94%
• 5Y*: 3.96%
• 10Y*: 5.55%

CLSM

• 1D: -0.38%
• 1M: 9.23%
• YTD: 20.45%
• 6M: 20.19%
• 1Y: 34.21%
• 3Y*: 13.75%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

HIPS vs. CLSM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
HIPS GraniteShares HIPS US High Income ETF	3.28%	1.00%	13.71%	16.09%	-13.47%	1.87%
CLSM Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF	20.45%	15.32%	1.87%	3.78%	-23.23%	9.10%

Correlation

The correlation between HIPS and CLSM is 0.36, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.36
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.45
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 14, 2021	0.44

HIPS vs. CLSM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	HIPS	CLSM
Energy	32.7%	0.2%
Real Estate	31.7%	0.0%
Financial Services	31.6%	0.1%
Basic Materials	4.0%	0.4%
Communication Services	0.0%	5.5%
Consumer Cyclical	-	4.4%
Consumer Defensive	-	34.8%
Healthcare	-	1.4%
Industrials	-	1.0%
Technology	-	51.8%
Utilities	-	0.5%

Return for Risk

HIPS vs. CLSM — Risk / Return Rank

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

HIPS

HIPS Risk / Return Rank: 20
HIPS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 19
HIPS Sortino Ratio Rank: 18
HIPS Omega Ratio Rank: 18
HIPS Calmar Ratio Rank: 22
HIPS Martin Ratio Rank: 22

CLSM

CLSM Risk / Return Rank: 82
CLSM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
CLSM Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
CLSM Omega Ratio Rank: 83
CLSM Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
CLSM Martin Ratio Rank: 83

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.

HIPS vs. CLSM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GraniteShares HIPS US High Income ETF (HIPS) 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.

	HIPS	CLSM	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	0.65	2.71	-2.05
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	0.97	3.58	-2.62
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.11	1.50	-0.38
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.01	4.04	-3.04
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	2.70	16.72	-14.01
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

HIPS vs. CLSM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current HIPS Sharpe Ratio is 0.65, which is lower than the CLSM Sharpe Ratio of 2.71. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of HIPS 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	HIPS	CLSM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.65	2.71	-2.05
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.30	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.31	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.23	0.35	-0.12

Drawdowns

HIPS vs. CLSM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum HIPS drawdown since its inception was -53.14%, which is greater than CLSM's maximum drawdown of -27.77%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for HIPS and CLSM.

Drawdown Indicators

	HIPS	CLSM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-53.14%	-27.77%	-25.37%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.15%	-8.50%	+2.35%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.41%	-14.60%	-0.81%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.28%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-53.14%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.23%	-0.38%	-3.85%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.39%	-16.49%	+9.10%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.29%	2.05%	+0.24%

Volatility

HIPS vs. CLSM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for GraniteShares HIPS US High Income ETF (HIPS) is 1.77%, while Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF (CLSM) has a volatility of 3.58%. This indicates that HIPS 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

	HIPS	CLSM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.77%	3.58%	-1.81%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.05%	10.54%	-3.49%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.57%	12.70%	-3.13%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.29%	12.47%	+0.82%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.07%	12.47%	+5.60%

HIPS vs. CLSM - Expense Ratio Comparison

HIPS has a 3.19% expense ratio, which is higher than CLSM's 0.82% expense ratio.

Dividends

HIPS vs. CLSM - Dividend Comparison

HIPS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 11.19%, more than CLSM's 0.75% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CLSM Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF	0.75%	0.90%	2.13%	2.58%	3.17%	0.59%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
HIPS GraniteShares HIPS US High Income ETF	11.19%	11.04%	10.04%	10.32%	10.76%	8.43%	9.50%	6.93%	8.66%	7.28%	7.20%	8.17%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both HIPS and CLSM in my portfolio?

HIPS and CLSM have a correlation of 0.36, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, HIPS or CLSM?

CLSM has higher volatility (3.58%) compared to HIPS (1.77%). In terms of maximum drawdown, HIPS dropped -53.14% vs CLSM's -27.77%.

Which ETF is better, HIPS or CLSM?

On 3-year performance, CLSM leads with 13.75% vs 10.94% for HIPS. On fees, CLSM is cheaper at 0.82% per year. On volatility, HIPS has been the lower-risk option at 1.77%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, HIPS or CLSM?

Over the 3-year period, CLSM has performed better with a 13.75% return vs 10.94%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, HIPS or CLSM?

CLSM is cheaper with a 0.82% expense ratio, compared with 3.19% for HIPS.

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

HIPS has the higher dividend yield at 11.19%, compared with 0.75% for CLSM.

What is the main difference between HIPS and CLSM?

HIPS is categorized as Diversified Portfolio, while CLSM is Tactical Allocation. HIPS tracks TFMS HIPS Index, while CLSM tracks Actively Managed. They also come from different issuers: GraniteShares and Cabana. Their fees differ too: 3.19% for HIPS and 0.82% for CLSM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CLSM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.71 vs 0.65), 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.