LCOW vs. CSHP

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

LCOW (Pacer S&P 500 Quality FCF Aristocrats ETF) and CSHP (iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LCOW is a S&P 500 fund tracking the S&P 500 Quality FCF Aristocrats Index, while CSHP is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by iShares. LCOW is passively managed, while CSHP is actively managed. Over the past year, LCOW returned 20.80% vs 3.96% for CSHP. At a correlation of -0.14, they often move in opposite directions. LCOW charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for CSHP.

Performance

LCOW vs. CSHP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Pacer S&P 500 Quality FCF Aristocrats ETF (LCOW) and iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF (CSHP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LCOW achieves a 4.69% return, which is significantly higher than CSHP's 1.86% return.

LCOW

• 1D: -0.51%
• 1M: -0.81%
• YTD: 4.69%
• 6M: 4.16%
• 1Y: 20.80%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CSHP

• 1D: -0.01%
• 1M: 0.30%
• YTD: 1.86%
• 6M: 1.93%
• 1Y: 3.96%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

LCOW vs. CSHP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
LCOW Pacer S&P 500 Quality FCF Aristocrats ETF	4.69%	20.51%
CSHP iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF	1.86%	2.65%

Correlation

The correlation between LCOW and CSHP is -0.12, 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	-0.12
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 7, 2025	-0.14

Return for Risk

LCOW vs. CSHP — Risk / Return Rank

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

LCOW

LCOW Risk / Return Rank: 48
LCOW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 51
LCOW Sortino Ratio Rank: 50
LCOW Omega Ratio Rank: 47
LCOW Calmar Ratio Rank: 41
LCOW Martin Ratio Rank: 51

CSHP

CSHP Risk / Return Rank: 99
CSHP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
CSHP Sortino Ratio Rank: 99
CSHP Omega Ratio Rank: 99
CSHP Calmar Ratio Rank: 100
CSHP Martin Ratio Rank: 100

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.

LCOW vs. CSHP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Pacer S&P 500 Quality FCF Aristocrats ETF (LCOW) and iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF (CSHP). 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.

	LCOW	CSHP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.70	11.22	-9.52
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.39	28.31	-25.92
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	6.67	-5.38
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.02	65.84	-63.82
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.38	395.75	-387.37

LCOW vs. CSHP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LCOW Sharpe Ratio is 1.70, which is lower than the CSHP Sharpe Ratio of 11.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LCOW and CSHP, 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

LCOW vs. CSHP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LCOW drawdown since its inception was -10.34%, which is greater than CSHP's maximum drawdown of -0.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LCOW and CSHP.

Drawdown Indicators

	LCOW	CSHP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-10.34%	-0.08%	-10.26%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.34%	-0.06%	-10.28%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.31%	-0.01%	-2.30%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.40%	-0.00%	-1.40%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.49%	0.01%	+2.48%

Volatility

LCOW vs. CSHP - Volatility Comparison

Pacer S&P 500 Quality FCF Aristocrats ETF (LCOW) has a higher volatility of 3.96% compared to iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF (CSHP) at 0.15%. This indicates that LCOW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CSHP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LCOW	CSHP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.96%	0.15%	+3.81%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.69%	0.27%	+9.42%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.33%	0.36%	+11.97%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.52%	0.41%	+12.11%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.52%	0.41%	+12.11%

LCOW vs. CSHP - Expense Ratio Comparison

LCOW has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is higher than CSHP's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

LCOW vs. CSHP - Dividend Comparison

LCOW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.65%, less than CSHP's 3.91% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
CSHP iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF	3.91%	5.39%	1.96%
LCOW Pacer S&P 500 Quality FCF Aristocrats ETF	0.65%	0.43%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LCOW and CSHP in my portfolio?

LCOW and CSHP have a correlation of -0.12, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LCOW or CSHP?

LCOW has higher volatility (3.96%) compared to CSHP (0.15%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LCOW dropped -10.34% vs CSHP's -0.08%.

Which ETF is better, LCOW or CSHP?

On 1-year performance, LCOW leads with 20.80% vs 3.96% for CSHP. On fees, CSHP is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, CSHP has been the lower-risk option at 0.15%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LCOW or CSHP?

Over the 1-year period, LCOW has performed better with a 20.80% return vs 3.96%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LCOW or CSHP?

CSHP is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for LCOW.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, LCOW or CSHP?

CSHP has the higher dividend yield at 3.91%, compared with 0.65% for LCOW.

What is the main difference between LCOW and CSHP?

LCOW is categorized as S&P 500, while CSHP is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: Pacer and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for LCOW and 0.20% for CSHP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CSHP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (11.22 vs 1.70), 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.