LSAT vs. CMDT
LSAT (Leadershares Alphafactor Tactical Focused ETF) and CMDT (PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - LSAT is a Money Market fund actively managed by Redwood, while CMDT is a Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Roll Select Commodity Total Return Index. LSAT is actively managed, while CMDT is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, LSAT returned 12.09%/yr vs 12.77%/yr for CMDT. At a 0.14 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. LSAT charges 0.99%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for CMDT.
Performance
LSAT vs. CMDT - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, LSAT achieves a 10.47% return, which is significantly lower than CMDT's 13.43% return.
LSAT
- 1D
- 0.62%
- 1M
- 0.13%
- YTD
- 10.47%
- 6M
- 8.90%
- 1Y
- 11.27%
- 3Y*
- 12.09%
- 5Y*
- 6.38%
- 10Y*
- —
CMDT
- 1D
- -1.14%
- 1M
- -8.86%
- YTD
- 13.43%
- 6M
- 13.42%
- 1Y
- 21.34%
- 3Y*
- 12.77%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
LSAT vs. CMDT - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
LSAT Leadershares Alphafactor Tactical Focused ETF | 10.47% | -1.54% | 18.16% | 12.05% |
CMDT PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund | 13.43% | 12.78% | 6.93% | 5.37% |
Correlation
The correlation between LSAT and CMDT is -0.05, 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 | -0.05 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.11 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 10, 2023 | 0.14 |
The correlation between LSAT and CMDT shifts across timeframes, from -0.05 (1 year) to 0.14 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
LSAT vs. CMDT — Risk / Return Rank
LSAT
CMDT
LSAT vs. CMDT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Leadershares Alphafactor Tactical Focused ETF (LSAT) and PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund (CMDT). 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.
| LSAT | CMDT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.83 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.03 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.15 | 1.29 | -0.14 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.43 | 1.93 | -0.50 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 3.34 | 9.62 | -6.28 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
LSAT vs. CMDT - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum LSAT drawdown since its inception was -20.48%, which is greater than CMDT's maximum drawdown of -11.11%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LSAT and CMDT.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| LSAT | CMDT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -20.48% | -11.11% | -9.37% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -7.94% | -11.11% | +3.17% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -18.25% | -11.11% | -7.14% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -20.48% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.36% | -11.11% | +9.75% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -5.51% | -2.77% | -2.74% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.38% | 2.25% | +1.13% |
Volatility
LSAT vs. CMDT - Volatility Comparison
Leadershares Alphafactor Tactical Focused ETF (LSAT) and PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund (CMDT) have volatilities of 3.38% and 3.26%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| LSAT | CMDT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.38% | 3.26% | +0.12% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 9.36% | 10.60% | -1.24% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 12.89% | 12.65% | +0.24% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.25% | 12.24% | +4.01% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.74% | 12.24% | +4.50% |
LSAT vs. CMDT - Expense Ratio Comparison
LSAT has a 0.99% expense ratio, which is higher than CMDT's 0.65% expense ratio.
Dividends
LSAT vs. CMDT - Dividend Comparison
LSAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.72%, less than CMDT's 2.67% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CMDT PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund | 2.67% | 3.04% | 8.80% | 2.71% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
LSAT Leadershares Alphafactor Tactical Focused ETF | 1.72% | 1.90% | 1.31% | 1.85% | 0.36% | 3.44% | 0.30% |
Frequently Asked Questions
LSAT and CMDT have a correlation of -0.05, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
LSAT has higher volatility (3.38%) compared to CMDT (3.26%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LSAT dropped -20.48% vs CMDT's -11.11%.
On 3-year performance, CMDT leads with 12.77% vs 12.09% for LSAT. On fees, CMDT is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, CMDT has been the lower-risk option at 3.26%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 3-year period, CMDT has performed better with a 12.77% return vs 12.09%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
CMDT is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.99% for LSAT.
CMDT has the higher dividend yield at 2.67%, compared with 1.72% for LSAT.
LSAT is categorized as Money Market, while CMDT is Commodities. They also come from different issuers: Redwood and PIMCO. Their fees differ too: 0.99% for LSAT and 0.65% for CMDT.
CMDT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.71 vs 0.88), 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.
Find the right allocation for LSAT and CMDT
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer