NDAA vs. CLSM

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

NDAA (Ned Davis Research 360 Dynamic Allocation ETF) and CLSM (Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - NDAA is a Diversified Portfolio fund actively managed by Ned Davis Research, while CLSM is a Tactical Allocation fund tracking the Actively Managed. NDAA is actively managed, while CLSM is passively managed. Over the past year, NDAA returned 21.73% vs 29.00% for CLSM. Their correlation of 0.88 suggests significant overlap in exposure. NDAA charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.82%/yr for CLSM.

Performance

NDAA vs. CLSM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Ned Davis Research 360 Dynamic Allocation ETF (NDAA) 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, NDAA achieves a 8.02% return, which is significantly lower than CLSM's 16.60% return.

NDAA

• 1D: -1.66%
• 1M: -1.70%
• YTD: 8.02%
• 6M: 7.54%
• 1Y: 21.73%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CLSM

• 1D: -1.97%
• 1M: -0.30%
• YTD: 16.60%
• 6M: 15.06%
• 1Y: 29.00%
• 3Y*: 13.32%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

NDAA vs. CLSM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
NDAA Ned Davis Research 360 Dynamic Allocation ETF	8.02%	14.00%	-1.48%
CLSM Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF	16.60%	15.32%	-3.54%

Correlation

The correlation between NDAA and CLSM is 0.91, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.91
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 17, 2024	0.88

The correlation between NDAA and CLSM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

NDAA vs. CLSM — Risk / Return Rank

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

NDAA

NDAA Risk / Return Rank: 65
NDAA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
NDAA Sortino Ratio Rank: 62
NDAA Omega Ratio Rank: 64
NDAA Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
NDAA Martin Ratio Rank: 70

CLSM

CLSM Risk / Return Rank: 72
CLSM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
CLSM Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
CLSM Omega Ratio Rank: 71
CLSM Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
CLSM Martin Ratio Rank: 77

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.

NDAA vs. CLSM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Ned Davis Research 360 Dynamic Allocation ETF (NDAA) 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.

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.

	NDAA	CLSM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.92	2.09	-0.17
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.62	2.78	-0.16
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.35	1.38	-0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.86	3.43	-0.56
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.75	13.40	-1.64

NDAA vs. CLSM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NDAA Sharpe Ratio is 1.92, which is comparable to the CLSM Sharpe Ratio of 2.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NDAA 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.

Drawdowns

NDAA vs. CLSM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NDAA drawdown since its inception was -13.50%, smaller than the maximum CLSM drawdown of -27.77%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NDAA and CLSM.

Drawdown Indicators

	NDAA	CLSM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.50%	-27.77%	+14.27%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.62%	-8.50%	+0.88%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-14.60%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.23%	-3.57%	+0.34%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.96%	-16.34%	+14.38%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.85%	2.17%	-0.32%

Volatility

NDAA vs. CLSM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Ned Davis Research 360 Dynamic Allocation ETF (NDAA) is 4.54%, while Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF (CLSM) has a volatility of 6.46%. This indicates that NDAA 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

	NDAA	CLSM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.54%	6.46%	-1.92%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.22%	12.06%	-2.84%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.37%	13.93%	-2.56%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.21%	12.70%	-0.49%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.21%	12.70%	-0.49%

NDAA vs. CLSM - Expense Ratio Comparison

NDAA has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is lower than CLSM's 0.82% expense ratio.

Dividends

NDAA vs. CLSM - Dividend Comparison

NDAA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.51%, more than CLSM's 0.77% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
CLSM Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF	0.77%	0.90%	2.13%	2.58%	3.17%	0.59%
NDAA Ned Davis Research 360 Dynamic Allocation ETF	2.51%	2.71%	0.83%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NDAA and CLSM in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.91, NDAA and CLSM move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, NDAA or CLSM?

CLSM has higher volatility (6.46%) compared to NDAA (4.54%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NDAA dropped -13.50% vs CLSM's -27.77%.

Which ETF is better, NDAA or CLSM?

On 1-year performance, CLSM leads with 29.00% vs 21.73% for NDAA. On fees, NDAA is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, NDAA has been the lower-risk option at 4.54%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NDAA or CLSM?

Over the 1-year period, CLSM has performed better with a 29.00% return vs 21.73%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NDAA or CLSM?

NDAA is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.82% for CLSM.

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

NDAA has the higher dividend yield at 2.51%, compared with 0.77% for CLSM.

What is the main difference between NDAA and CLSM?

NDAA is categorized as Diversified Portfolio, while CLSM is Tactical Allocation. They also come from different issuers: Ned Davis Research and Cabana. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for NDAA and 0.82% for CLSM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CLSM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.09 vs 1.92), 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.