LBAY vs. CLSE

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

LBAY (Leatherback Long/Short Alternative Yield ETF) and CLSE (Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF) are both Long-Short funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, LBAY returned 2.46%/yr vs 29.99%/yr for CLSE. At a 0.15 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. LBAY charges 1.09%/yr vs 1.52%/yr for CLSE.

Performance

LBAY vs. CLSE - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Leatherback Long/Short Alternative Yield ETF (LBAY) 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, LBAY achieves a 7.27% return, which is significantly lower than CLSE's 24.66% return.

LBAY

• 1D: 1.00%
• 1M: 0.42%
• 6M: 4.98%
• YTD: 7.27%
• 1Y: 7.09%
• 3Y*: 2.46%
• 5Y*: 5.28%
• 10Y*: —

CLSE

• 1D: -0.29%
• 1M: -0.41%
• 6M: 22.60%
• YTD: 24.66%
• 1Y: 47.95%
• 3Y*: 29.99%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

LBAY vs. CLSE - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
LBAY Leatherback Long/Short Alternative Yield ETF	7.27%	4.08%	-3.49%	-8.54%	14.35%
CLSE Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF	24.66%	20.44%	35.54%	17.54%	-4.38%

Correlation

The correlation between LBAY and CLSE is -0.20, 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	-0.20
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.09
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 22, 2022	0.15

The correlation between LBAY and CLSE shifts across timeframes, from -0.20 (1 year) to 0.15 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

LBAY vs. CLSE — Risk / Return Rank

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

LBAY

LBAY Risk / Return Rank: 17
LBAY Sharpe Ratio Rank: 17
LBAY Sortino Ratio Rank: 17
LBAY Omega Ratio Rank: 16
LBAY Calmar Ratio Rank: 17
LBAY Martin Ratio Rank: 16

CLSE

CLSE Risk / Return Rank: 97
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) 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.

LBAY vs. CLSE - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Leatherback Long/Short Alternative Yield ETF (LBAY) 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.

	LBAY	CLSE	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.43	3.51	-3.08
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.76	4.69	-3.93
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.09	1.61	-0.52
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.52	9.94	-9.41
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.22	34.91	-33.69

LBAY vs. CLSE - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LBAY Sharpe Ratio is 0.43, which is lower than the CLSE Sharpe Ratio of 3.51. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LBAY 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

LBAY vs. CLSE - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LBAY drawdown since its inception was -15.99%, roughly equal to the maximum CLSE drawdown of -16.45%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LBAY and CLSE.

Drawdown Indicators

	LBAY	CLSE	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.99%	-16.45%	+0.46%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-13.61%	-4.85%	-8.76%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.57%	-16.45%	+1.88%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-15.99%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.97%	-1.10%	-8.87%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.87%	-3.54%	-3.33%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.84%	1.38%	+4.46%

Volatility

LBAY vs. CLSE - Volatility Comparison

Leatherback Long/Short Alternative Yield ETF (LBAY) has a higher volatility of 6.58% compared to Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF (CLSE) at 3.92%. This indicates that LBAY'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

	LBAY	CLSE	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.58%	3.92%	+2.66%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.21%	10.73%	+2.48%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.45%	13.76%	+2.69%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.70%	13.90%	-0.20%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.89%	13.90%	-0.01%

LBAY vs. CLSE - Expense Ratio Comparison

LBAY has a 1.09% expense ratio, which is lower than CLSE's 1.52% expense ratio.

Dividends

LBAY vs. CLSE - Dividend Comparison

LBAY's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.82%, more than CLSE's 0.76% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
CLSE Convergence Long/Short Equity ETF	0.76%	0.95%	0.93%	1.21%	0.85%	0.00%	0.00%
LBAY Leatherback Long/Short Alternative Yield ETF	3.82%	3.80%	3.77%	3.47%	2.74%	2.96%	0.29%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LBAY and CLSE in my portfolio?

LBAY and CLSE have a correlation of -0.20, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LBAY or CLSE?

LBAY has higher volatility (6.58%) compared to CLSE (3.92%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LBAY dropped -15.99% vs CLSE's -16.45%.

Which ETF is better, LBAY or CLSE?

On 3-year performance, CLSE leads with 29.99% vs 2.46% for LBAY. On fees, LBAY is cheaper at 1.09% per year. On volatility, CLSE has been the lower-risk option at 3.92%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LBAY or CLSE?

Over the 3-year period, CLSE has performed better with a 29.99% return vs 2.46%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LBAY or CLSE?

LBAY is cheaper with a 1.09% expense ratio, compared with 1.52% for CLSE.

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

LBAY has the higher dividend yield at 3.82%, compared with 0.76% for CLSE.

What is the main difference between LBAY and CLSE?

They also come from different issuers: Toroso Investments and Convergence Investment Partners. Their fees differ too: 1.09% for LBAY and 1.52% for CLSE.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CLSE currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.51 vs 0.43), 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.