HIPS vs. CLSM
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 10.07%/yr vs 12.99%/yr for CLSM. At a 0.43 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. HIPS charges 3.19%/yr vs 0.82%/yr for CLSM.
Performance
HIPS vs. CLSM - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, HIPS achieves a 2.22% return, which is significantly lower than CLSM's 16.42% return.
HIPS
- 1D
- 0.35%
- 1M
- -1.66%
- YTD
- 2.22%
- 6M
- 1.89%
- 1Y
- 5.13%
- 3Y*
- 10.07%
- 5Y*
- 3.65%
- 10Y*
- 5.73%
CLSM
- 1D
- 0.39%
- 1M
- -1.39%
- YTD
- 16.42%
- 6M
- 14.59%
- 1Y
- 27.84%
- 3Y*
- 12.99%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
HIPS vs. CLSM - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
HIPS GraniteShares HIPS US High Income ETF | 2.22% | 1.00% | 13.71% | 16.09% | -13.47% | 0.90% |
CLSM Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF | 16.42% | 15.32% | 1.87% | 3.78% | -23.23% | 8.22% |
Correlation
The correlation between HIPS and CLSM is 0.31, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.31 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.44 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 13, 2021 | 0.43 |
The correlation between HIPS and CLSM shifts across timeframes, from 0.31 (1 year) to 0.44 (3 years), 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
HIPS vs. CLSM — Risk / Return Rank
HIPS
CLSM
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.
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.
| HIPS | CLSM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.48 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.88 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.09 | 1.37 | -0.27 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.84 | 3.29 | -2.45 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.01 | 12.70 | -10.69 |
Loading charts...
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.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| HIPS | CLSM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest 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 DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -5.21% | -3.71% | -1.50% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -7.37% | -16.32% | +8.95% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.56% | 2.20% | +0.36% |
Volatility
HIPS vs. CLSM - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for GraniteShares HIPS US High Income ETF (HIPS) is 3.02%, while Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF (CLSM) has a volatility of 6.39%. 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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| HIPS | CLSM | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.02% | 6.39% | -3.37% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 7.38% | 12.05% | -4.67% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 9.70% | 13.90% | -4.20% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 13.26% | 12.70% | +0.56% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 18.03% | 12.70% | +5.33% |
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 11.31%, more than CLSM's 0.77% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CLSM Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF | 0.77% | 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 | 11.31% | 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
HIPS and CLSM have a correlation of 0.31, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
CLSM has higher volatility (6.39%) compared to HIPS (3.02%). In terms of maximum drawdown, HIPS dropped -53.14% vs CLSM's -27.77%.
On 3-year performance, CLSM leads with 12.99% vs 10.07% for HIPS. On fees, CLSM is cheaper at 0.82% per year. On volatility, HIPS has been the lower-risk option at 3.02%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 3-year period, CLSM has performed better with a 12.99% return vs 10.07%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
CLSM is cheaper with a 0.82% expense ratio, compared with 3.19% for HIPS.
HIPS has the higher dividend yield at 11.31%, compared with 0.77% for 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.
CLSM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.01 vs 0.53), 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 HIPS and CLSM
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