INCM vs. CLSM

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

INCM (Franklin Income Focus ETF) and CLSM (Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - INCM is a Diversified Portfolio fund actively managed by Franklin Templeton, while CLSM is a Tactical Allocation fund tracking the Actively Managed. INCM is actively managed, while CLSM is passively managed. Over the past year, INCM returned 16.64% vs 35.30% for CLSM. A 0.60 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. INCM charges 0.38%/yr vs 0.82%/yr for CLSM.

Performance

INCM vs. CLSM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Franklin Income Focus ETF (INCM) 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, INCM achieves a 6.96% return, which is significantly lower than CLSM's 20.91% return.

INCM

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.53%
• YTD: 6.96%
• 6M: 7.85%
• 1Y: 16.64%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CLSM

• 1D: 0.55%
• 1M: 9.14%
• YTD: 20.91%
• 6M: 20.97%
• 1Y: 35.30%
• 3Y*: 13.89%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

INCM vs. CLSM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
INCM Franklin Income Focus ETF	6.96%	13.07%	6.80%	5.76%
CLSM Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF	20.91%	15.32%	1.87%	4.22%

Correlation

The correlation between INCM and CLSM is 0.59, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.59
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 9, 2023	0.60

The correlation between INCM and CLSM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.59 to 0.60 - a consistent structural relationship.

INCM vs. CLSM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	INCM	CLSM
Financial Services	8.2%	0.1%
Consumer Defensive	6.7%	34.8%
Utilities	4.9%	0.5%
Energy	3.8%	0.2%
Healthcare	2.6%	1.4%
Technology	2.4%	51.8%
Industrials	1.9%	1.0%
Basic Materials	1.9%	0.4%
Communication Services	1.7%	5.5%
Consumer Cyclical	1.5%	4.4%
Real Estate	0.0%	0.0%

Return for Risk

INCM vs. CLSM — Risk / Return Rank

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

INCM

INCM Risk / Return Rank: 91
INCM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
INCM Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
INCM Omega Ratio Rank: 92
INCM Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
INCM Martin Ratio Rank: 91

CLSM

CLSM Risk / Return Rank: 82
CLSM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
CLSM Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
CLSM Omega Ratio Rank: 83
CLSM Calmar Ratio Rank: 81
CLSM Martin Ratio Rank: 84

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.

INCM vs. CLSM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin Income Focus ETF (INCM) 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.

	INCM	CLSM	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	3.20	2.79	+0.40
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	4.78	3.68	+1.09
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.62	1.51	+0.10
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.27	4.25	+1.02
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	22.29	17.62	+4.67
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

INCM vs. CLSM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current INCM Sharpe Ratio is 3.20, which is comparable to the CLSM Sharpe Ratio of 2.79. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of INCM 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

	INCM	CLSM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.20	2.79	+0.40
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.54	0.35	+1.18

Drawdowns

INCM vs. CLSM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum INCM drawdown since its inception was -7.84%, smaller than the maximum CLSM drawdown of -27.77%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for INCM and CLSM.

Drawdown Indicators

	INCM	CLSM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-7.84%	-27.77%	+19.93%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.19%	-8.50%	+5.31%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-14.60%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.27%	0.00%	-0.27%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.09%	-16.50%	+15.41%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.75%	2.05%	-1.30%

Volatility

INCM vs. CLSM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Franklin Income Focus ETF (INCM) is 1.72%, while Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF (CLSM) has a volatility of 3.60%. This indicates that INCM 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

	INCM	CLSM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.72%	3.60%	-1.88%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.81%	10.58%	-6.77%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	5.22%	12.70%	-7.48%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.23%	12.47%	-5.24%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.23%	12.47%	-5.24%

INCM vs. CLSM - Expense Ratio Comparison

INCM has a 0.38% expense ratio, which is lower than CLSM's 0.82% expense ratio.

Dividends

INCM vs. CLSM - Dividend Comparison

INCM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.06%, more than CLSM's 0.74% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
CLSM Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF	0.74%	0.90%	2.13%	2.58%	3.17%	0.59%
INCM Franklin Income Focus ETF	5.06%	4.96%	5.06%	3.01%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both INCM and CLSM in my portfolio?

INCM and CLSM have a correlation of 0.59, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, INCM or CLSM?

CLSM has higher volatility (3.60%) compared to INCM (1.72%). In terms of maximum drawdown, INCM dropped -7.84% vs CLSM's -27.77%.

Which ETF is better, INCM or CLSM?

On 1-year performance, CLSM leads with 35.30% vs 16.64% for INCM. On fees, INCM is cheaper at 0.38% per year. On volatility, INCM has been the lower-risk option at 1.72%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, INCM or CLSM?

Over the 1-year period, CLSM has performed better with a 35.30% return vs 16.64%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, INCM or CLSM?

INCM is cheaper with a 0.38% expense ratio, compared with 0.82% for CLSM.

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

INCM has the higher dividend yield at 5.06%, compared with 0.74% for CLSM.

What is the main difference between INCM and CLSM?

INCM is categorized as Diversified Portfolio, while CLSM is Tactical Allocation. They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and Cabana. Their fees differ too: 0.38% for INCM and 0.82% for CLSM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

INCM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.20 vs 2.79), 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.