PBL vs. CLSM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

PBL (PGIM Portfolio Ballast ETF) and CLSM (Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - PBL is a Diversified Portfolio fund actively managed by PGIM, while CLSM is a Tactical Allocation fund tracking the Actively Managed. PBL is actively managed, while CLSM is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, PBL returned 15.09%/yr vs 13.75%/yr for CLSM. A 0.73 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. PBL charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.82%/yr for CLSM.

Performance

PBL vs. CLSM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in PGIM Portfolio Ballast ETF (PBL) 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, PBL achieves a 7.85% return, which is significantly lower than CLSM's 20.45% return.

PBL

• 1D: -0.21%
• 1M: 4.07%
• YTD: 7.85%
• 6M: 8.56%
• 1Y: 19.49%
• 3Y*: 15.09%
• 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)

PBL vs. CLSM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
PBL PGIM Portfolio Ballast ETF	7.85%	12.35%	16.70%	14.28%	-3.52%
CLSM Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF	20.45%	15.32%	1.87%	3.78%	-3.92%

Correlation

The correlation between PBL and CLSM is 0.85, 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	0.85
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.78
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 15, 2022	0.73

The correlation between PBL and CLSM shifts across timeframes, from 0.73 (all time) to 0.85 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

PBL vs. CLSM — Risk / Return Rank

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

PBL

PBL Risk / Return Rank: 68
PBL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
PBL Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
PBL Omega Ratio Rank: 64
PBL Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
PBL Martin Ratio Rank: 72

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.

PBL vs. CLSM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PGIM Portfolio Ballast ETF (PBL) 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.

	PBL	CLSM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.21	2.71	-0.50
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.10	3.58	-0.49
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.50	-0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.37	4.04	-0.68
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.56	16.72	-3.16
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

PBL vs. CLSM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PBL Sharpe Ratio is 2.21, which is comparable to the CLSM Sharpe Ratio of 2.71. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PBL 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

	PBL	CLSM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.21	2.71	-0.50
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.40	0.35	+1.05

Drawdowns

PBL vs. CLSM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PBL drawdown since its inception was -11.69%, smaller than the maximum CLSM drawdown of -27.77%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PBL and CLSM.

Drawdown Indicators

	PBL	CLSM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.69%	-27.77%	+16.08%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.82%	-8.50%	+2.68%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-11.69%	-14.60%	+2.91%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.21%	-0.38%	+0.17%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.65%	-16.49%	+14.84%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.44%	2.05%	-0.61%

Volatility

PBL vs. CLSM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for PGIM Portfolio Ballast ETF (PBL) is 2.51%, while Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF (CLSM) has a volatility of 3.58%. This indicates that PBL 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

	PBL	CLSM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.51%	3.58%	-1.07%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.56%	10.54%	-3.98%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.87%	12.70%	-3.83%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	9.83%	12.47%	-2.64%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	9.83%	12.47%	-2.64%

PBL vs. CLSM - Expense Ratio Comparison

PBL has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is lower than CLSM's 0.82% expense ratio.

Dividends

PBL vs. CLSM - Dividend Comparison

PBL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.05%, more 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%
PBL PGIM Portfolio Ballast ETF	2.05%	2.21%	6.89%	7.92%	0.16%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PBL and CLSM in my portfolio?

PBL and CLSM have a correlation of 0.85, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PBL or CLSM?

CLSM has higher volatility (3.58%) compared to PBL (2.51%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PBL dropped -11.69% vs CLSM's -27.77%.

Which ETF is better, PBL or CLSM?

On 3-year performance, PBL leads with 15.09% vs 13.75% for CLSM. On fees, PBL is cheaper at 0.45% per year. On volatility, PBL has been the lower-risk option at 2.51%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PBL or CLSM?

Over the 3-year period, PBL has performed better with a 15.09% return vs 13.75%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PBL or CLSM?

PBL is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.82% for CLSM.

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

PBL has the higher dividend yield at 2.05%, compared with 0.75% for CLSM.

What is the main difference between PBL and CLSM?

PBL is categorized as Diversified Portfolio, while CLSM is Tactical Allocation. They also come from different issuers: PGIM and Cabana. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for PBL and 0.82% for CLSM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CLSM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.71 vs 2.21), 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.