LC vs. CEFS

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

LC (LendingClub Corporation) is a stock, while CEFS (Saba Closed-End Funds ETF) is Event Driven fund actively managed by Exchange Traded Concepts. Over the past 5 years, LC returned 2.37%/yr vs 13.95%/yr for CEFS. At a 0.39 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

LC vs. CEFS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in LendingClub Corporation (LC) and Saba Closed-End Funds ETF (CEFS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LC achieves a -7.23% return, which is significantly lower than CEFS's 14.27% return.

LC

• 1D: 7.20%
• 1M: 2.93%
• YTD: -7.23%
• 6M: -10.04%
• 1Y: 69.10%
• 3Y*: 26.06%
• 5Y*: 2.37%
• 10Y*: -2.95%

CEFS

• 1D: 0.45%
• 1M: 4.48%
• YTD: 14.27%
• 6M: 16.98%
• 1Y: 25.05%
• 3Y*: 22.08%
• 5Y*: 13.95%
• 10Y*: —

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

LC vs. CEFS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
LC LendingClub Corporation	-7.23%	16.99%	85.24%	-0.68%	-63.61%	128.98%	-16.32%	-4.03%	-36.32%	-28.79%
CEFS Saba Closed-End Funds ETF	14.27%	16.67%	23.48%	20.99%	-7.08%	17.86%	3.40%	28.41%	-9.97%	7.63%

Correlation

The correlation between LC and CEFS is 0.44, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.44
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.45
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.47
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 14, 2017	0.39

Return for Risk

LC vs. CEFS — Risk / Return Rank

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

LC

LC Risk / Return Rank: 73
LC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
LC Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
LC Omega Ratio Rank: 73
LC Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
LC Martin Ratio Rank: 72

CEFS

CEFS Risk / Return Rank: 82
CEFS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 79
CEFS Sortino Ratio Rank: 84
CEFS Omega Ratio Rank: 81
CEFS Calmar Ratio Rank: 83
CEFS Martin Ratio Rank: 85

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.

LC vs. CEFS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for LendingClub Corporation (LC) and Saba Closed-End Funds ETF (CEFS). 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.

	LC	CEFS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.25	2.54	-1.29
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.86	3.71	-1.85
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.48	-0.23
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.81	4.44	-2.62
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.12	17.30	-13.18
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LC vs. CEFS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LC Sharpe Ratio is 1.25, which is lower than the CEFS Sharpe Ratio of 2.54. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LC and CEFS, 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

	LC	CEFS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.25	2.54	-1.29
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.04	1.07	-1.03
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	-0.05	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.24	0.80	-1.04

Drawdowns

LC vs. CEFS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LC drawdown since its inception was -96.84%, which is greater than CEFS's maximum drawdown of -38.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LC and CEFS.

Drawdown Indicators

	LC	CEFS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-96.84%	-38.99%	-57.85%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-38.28%	-5.67%	-32.61%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-53.53%	-13.37%	-40.16%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-89.48%	-16.85%	-72.63%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-89.48%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-87.41%	-0.06%	-87.35%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-83.59%	-3.67%	-79.92%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	16.83%	1.45%	+15.38%

Volatility

LC vs. CEFS - Volatility Comparison

LendingClub Corporation (LC) has a higher volatility of 16.35% compared to Saba Closed-End Funds ETF (CEFS) at 3.37%. This indicates that LC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CEFS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LC	CEFS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	16.35%	3.37%	+12.98%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	41.55%	8.54%	+33.01%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	55.60%	9.93%	+45.67%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	65.20%	13.08%	+52.12%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	63.18%	15.33%	+47.85%

Dividends

LC vs. CEFS - Dividend Comparison

LC has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CEFS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 7.07%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CEFS Saba Closed-End Funds ETF	7.07%	7.84%	8.79%	9.20%	11.32%	10.73%	8.61%	8.10%	10.43%	5.02%
LC LendingClub Corporation	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LC and CEFS in my portfolio?

LC and CEFS have a correlation of 0.44, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LC or CEFS?

LC has higher volatility (16.35%) compared to CEFS (3.37%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LC dropped -96.84% vs CEFS's -38.99%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CEFS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.54 vs 1.25), 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.