LGCF vs. CSHP

Last updated Jun 6, 2026

LGCF (Themes US Cash Flow Champions ETF) and CSHP (iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LGCF is a Large Cap Value Equities fund tracking the Solactive US Cash Flow Champions Index, while CSHP is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by iShares. LGCF is passively managed, while CSHP is actively managed. Over the past year, LGCF returned 18.10% vs 4.02% for CSHP. At a 0.04 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. LGCF charges 0.29%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for CSHP.

Performance

LGCF vs. CSHP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Themes US Cash Flow Champions ETF (LGCF) 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, LGCF achieves a 4.45% return, which is significantly higher than CSHP's 1.72% return.

LGCF

• 1D: -0.82%
• 1M: 0.95%
• YTD: 4.45%
• 6M: 5.09%
• 1Y: 18.10%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CSHP

• 1D: 0.10%
• 1M: 0.34%
• YTD: 1.72%
• 6M: 1.92%
• 1Y: 4.02%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

LGCF vs. CSHP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
LGCF Themes US Cash Flow Champions ETF	4.45%	15.71%	3.39%
CSHP iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF	1.72%	4.10%	2.24%

Correlation

The correlation between LGCF and CSHP is -0.10, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.10
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 19, 2024	0.04

The correlation between LGCF and CSHP shifts across timeframes, from -0.10 (1 year) to 0.04 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

LGCF vs. CSHP - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LGCF	CSHP
Financial Services	36.2%	0.1%
Energy	21.7%	-
Healthcare	17.3%	-
Technology	8.5%	-
Consumer Cyclical	7.6%	-
Consumer Defensive	2.9%	-
Basic Materials	2.3%	-
Communication Services	2.3%	-
Industrials	1.2%	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

LGCF vs. CSHP — Risk / Return Rank

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

LGCF

LGCF Risk / Return Rank: 51
LGCF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
LGCF Sortino Ratio Rank: 43
LGCF Omega Ratio Rank: 44
LGCF Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
LGCF Martin Ratio Rank: 58

CSHP

CSHP Risk / Return Rank: 100
CSHP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
CSHP Sortino Ratio Rank: 100
CSHP Omega Ratio Rank: 100
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.

LGCF vs. CSHP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Themes US Cash Flow Champions ETF (LGCF) 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.

	LGCF	CSHP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.41	11.73	-10.31
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.98	31.51	-29.53
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	7.38	-6.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.16	66.75	-63.59
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.53	436.68	-427.14
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LGCF vs. CSHP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LGCF Sharpe Ratio is 1.41, which is lower than the CSHP Sharpe Ratio of 11.73. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LGCF 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	LGCF	CSHP	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.41	11.73	-10.31
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.08	10.71	-9.63

Drawdowns

LGCF vs. CSHP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LGCF drawdown since its inception was -16.67%, which is greater than CSHP's maximum drawdown of -0.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LGCF and CSHP.

Drawdown Indicators

	LGCF	CSHP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.67%	-0.08%	-16.59%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.75%	-0.06%	-5.69%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.82%	0.00%	-0.82%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.22%	-0.00%	-2.22%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.90%	0.01%	+1.89%

Volatility

LGCF vs. CSHP - Volatility Comparison

Themes US Cash Flow Champions ETF (LGCF) has a higher volatility of 2.92% compared to iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF (CSHP) at 0.11%. This indicates that LGCF'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

	LGCF	CSHP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.92%	0.11%	+2.81%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.11%	0.25%	+9.86%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.86%	0.34%	+12.52%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.16%	0.40%	+14.76%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.16%	0.40%	+14.76%

LGCF vs. CSHP - Expense Ratio Comparison

LGCF has a 0.29% expense ratio, which is higher than CSHP's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

LGCF vs. CSHP - Dividend Comparison

LGCF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.76%, less than CSHP's 3.92% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
CSHP iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF	3.92%	5.39%	1.96%
LGCF Themes US Cash Flow Champions ETF	1.76%	1.84%	1.19%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LGCF and CSHP in my portfolio?

LGCF and CSHP have a correlation of -0.10, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LGCF or CSHP?

LGCF has higher volatility (2.92%) compared to CSHP (0.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LGCF dropped -16.67% vs CSHP's -0.08%.

Which ETF is better, LGCF or CSHP?

On 1-year performance, LGCF leads with 18.10% vs 4.02% for CSHP. On fees, CSHP is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, CSHP has been the lower-risk option at 0.11%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LGCF or CSHP?

Over the 1-year period, LGCF has performed better with a 18.10% return vs 4.02%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LGCF or CSHP?

CSHP is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.29% for LGCF.

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

CSHP has the higher dividend yield at 3.92%, compared with 1.76% for LGCF.

What is the main difference between LGCF and CSHP?

LGCF is categorized as Large Cap Value Equities, while CSHP is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: Themes and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.29% for LGCF and 0.20% for CSHP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CSHP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (11.73 vs 1.41), 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.