MOOD vs. CLSM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

MOOD (Relative Sentiment Tactical Allocation ETF) and CLSM (Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF) are both Tactical Allocation funds. MOOD is actively managed, while CLSM is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, MOOD returned 20.58%/yr vs 13.75%/yr for CLSM. A 0.66 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. MOOD charges 0.68%/yr vs 0.82%/yr for CLSM.

Performance

MOOD vs. CLSM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Relative Sentiment Tactical Allocation ETF (MOOD) and Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF (CLSM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MOOD achieves a 14.40% return, which is significantly lower than CLSM's 20.45% return.

MOOD

• 1D: -0.58%
• 1M: 3.67%
• YTD: 14.40%
• 6M: 16.67%
• 1Y: 36.14%
• 3Y*: 20.58%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CLSM

• 1D: -0.38%
• 1M: 9.23%
• YTD: 20.45%
• 6M: 20.19%
• 1Y: 34.21%
• 3Y*: 13.75%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

MOOD vs. CLSM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
MOOD Relative Sentiment Tactical Allocation ETF	14.40%	30.39%	12.53%	12.56%	-2.90%
CLSM Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF	20.45%	15.32%	1.87%	3.78%	-4.18%

Correlation

The correlation between MOOD and CLSM is 0.79, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.79
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.72
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 20, 2022	0.66

The correlation between MOOD and CLSM shifts across timeframes, from 0.66 (all time) to 0.79 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

MOOD vs. CLSM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MOOD	CLSM
Technology	27.6%	51.8%
Financial Services	15.7%	0.1%
Industrials	12.6%	1.0%
Consumer Cyclical	9.5%	4.4%
Healthcare	8.4%	1.4%
Communication Services	7.9%	5.5%
Consumer Defensive	5.1%	34.8%
Basic Materials	4.4%	0.4%
Energy	3.7%	0.2%
Utilities	2.7%	0.5%
Real Estate	2.5%	0.0%

Return for Risk

MOOD vs. CLSM — Risk / Return Rank

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

MOOD

MOOD Risk / Return Rank: 72
MOOD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
MOOD Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
MOOD Omega Ratio Rank: 83
MOOD Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
MOOD Martin Ratio Rank: 63

CLSM

CLSM Risk / Return Rank: 82
CLSM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
CLSM Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
CLSM Omega Ratio Rank: 83
CLSM Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
CLSM Martin Ratio Rank: 83

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.

MOOD vs. CLSM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Relative Sentiment Tactical Allocation ETF (MOOD) and Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF (CLSM). 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.

	MOOD	CLSM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.57	2.71	-0.13
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.01	3.58	-0.57
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.51	1.50	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.74	4.04	-0.30
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.60	16.72	-5.12
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MOOD vs. CLSM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MOOD Sharpe Ratio is 2.57, which is comparable to the CLSM Sharpe Ratio of 2.71. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MOOD and CLSM, 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

	MOOD	CLSM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.57	2.71	-0.13
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.35	0.35	+1.00

Drawdowns

MOOD vs. CLSM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MOOD drawdown since its inception was -14.34%, smaller than the maximum CLSM drawdown of -27.77%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MOOD and CLSM.

Drawdown Indicators

	MOOD	CLSM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.34%	-27.77%	+13.43%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.71%	-8.50%	-1.21%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-9.71%	-14.60%	+4.89%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.61%	-0.38%	-0.23%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.32%	-16.49%	+14.17%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.12%	2.05%	+1.07%

Volatility

MOOD vs. CLSM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Relative Sentiment Tactical Allocation ETF (MOOD) is 3.22%, while Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF (CLSM) has a volatility of 3.58%. This indicates that MOOD experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CLSM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MOOD	CLSM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.22%	3.58%	-0.36%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.32%	10.54%	+1.78%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.11%	12.70%	+1.41%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.07%	12.47%	-0.40%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.07%	12.47%	-0.40%

MOOD vs. CLSM - Expense Ratio Comparison

MOOD has a 0.68% expense ratio, which is lower than CLSM's 0.82% expense ratio.

Dividends

MOOD vs. CLSM - Dividend Comparison

MOOD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.35%, less than CLSM's 0.75% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
CLSM Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF	0.75%	0.90%	2.13%	2.58%	3.17%	0.59%
MOOD Relative Sentiment Tactical Allocation ETF	0.35%	0.40%	1.33%	1.34%	1.43%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MOOD and CLSM in my portfolio?

MOOD and CLSM have a correlation of 0.79, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MOOD or CLSM?

CLSM has higher volatility (3.58%) compared to MOOD (3.22%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MOOD dropped -14.34% vs CLSM's -27.77%.

Which ETF is better, MOOD or CLSM?

On 3-year performance, MOOD leads with 20.58% vs 13.75% for CLSM. On fees, MOOD is cheaper at 0.68% per year. On volatility, MOOD has been the lower-risk option at 3.22%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MOOD or CLSM?

Over the 3-year period, MOOD has performed better with a 20.58% return vs 13.75%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MOOD or CLSM?

MOOD is cheaper with a 0.68% expense ratio, compared with 0.82% for CLSM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MOOD or CLSM?

CLSM has the higher dividend yield at 0.75%, compared with 0.35% for MOOD.

What is the main difference between MOOD and CLSM?

They also come from different issuers: Relative Sentiment and Cabana. Their fees differ too: 0.68% for MOOD and 0.82% for CLSM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CLSM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.71 vs 2.57), 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.