PFFV vs. CSPF

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

PFFV (Global X Variable Rate Preferred ETF) and CSPF (Cohen & Steers Preferred and Income Opportunities Active ETF) are both Preferred Stock funds. PFFV is passively managed, while CSPF is actively managed. Over the past year, PFFV returned 3.17% vs 6.91% for CSPF. Their 0.40 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. PFFV charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for CSPF.

Performance

PFFV vs. CSPF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Variable Rate Preferred ETF (PFFV) and Cohen & Steers Preferred and Income Opportunities Active ETF (CSPF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PFFV achieves a 2.94% return, which is significantly lower than CSPF's 3.26% return.

PFFV

• 1D: -0.05%
• 1M: 0.20%
• 6M: 0.85%
• YTD: 2.94%
• 1Y: 3.17%
• 3Y*: 6.48%
• 5Y*: 1.96%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 4.69%

CSPF

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: -0.24%
• 6M: 1.80%
• YTD: 3.26%
• 1Y: 6.91%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 7.79%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
CSPF Cohen & Steers Preferred and Income Opportunities Active ETF	$1.30M	$1.57M	$2.58M
PFFV Global X Variable Rate Preferred ETF	$966.57K	$1.21M	$1.24M

PFFV vs. CSPF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
PFFV Global X Variable Rate Preferred ETF	2.94%	0.56%
CSPF Cohen & Steers Preferred and Income Opportunities Active ETF	3.26%	8.22%

Correlation

The correlation between PFFV and CSPF is 0.42, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.42
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 5, 2025	0.40

Return for Risk

PFFV vs. CSPF — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

PFFV

PFFV Risk / Return Rank: 29
PFFV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 31
PFFV Sortino Ratio Rank: 28
PFFV Omega Ratio Rank: 28
PFFV Calmar Ratio Rank: 30
PFFV Martin Ratio Rank: 30

CSPF

CSPF Risk / Return Rank: 75
CSPF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
CSPF Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
CSPF Omega Ratio Rank: 78
CSPF Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
CSPF Martin Ratio Rank: 78

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

PFFV vs. CSPF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Variable Rate Preferred ETF (PFFV) and Cohen & Steers Preferred and Income Opportunities Active ETF (CSPF). 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.

	PFFV	CSPF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.75	1.72	-0.97
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.09	2.52	-1.43
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.13	1.33	-0.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.95	2.25	-1.30
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.63	10.06	-7.43

PFFV vs. CSPF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PFFV Sharpe Ratio is 0.75, which is lower than the CSPF Sharpe Ratio of 1.72. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PFFV and CSPF, 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

PFFV vs. CSPF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PFFV drawdown since its inception was -18.96%, which is greater than CSPF's maximum drawdown of -3.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PFFV and CSPF.

Drawdown Indicators

	PFFV	CSPF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-18.96%	-3.06%	-15.90%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.23%	-3.06%	-0.17%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-6.07%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-18.96%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.30%	-0.71%	+0.41%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.09%	-0.44%	-3.65%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.17%	0.68%	+0.49%

Volatility

PFFV vs. CSPF - Volatility Comparison

Global X Variable Rate Preferred ETF (PFFV) has a higher volatility of 0.99% compared to Cohen & Steers Preferred and Income Opportunities Active ETF (CSPF) at 0.88%. This indicates that PFFV's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CSPF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PFFV	CSPF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.99%	0.88%	+0.11%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.08%	3.13%	-0.05%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.12%	4.01%	+0.11%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.85%	4.10%	+4.75%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	8.60%	4.10%	+4.50%

PFFV vs. CSPF - Expense Ratio Comparison

PFFV has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than CSPF's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

PFFV vs. CSPF - Dividend Comparison

PFFV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 8.13%, more than CSPF's 5.34% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
CSPF Cohen & Steers Preferred and Income Opportunities Active ETF	5.34%	4.63%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
PFFV Global X Variable Rate Preferred ETF	7.50%	8.26%	7.33%	7.17%	6.60%	5.23%	2.29%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PFFV and CSPF in my portfolio?

PFFV and CSPF have a correlation of 0.42, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PFFV or CSPF?

PFFV has higher volatility (0.99%) compared to CSPF (0.88%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PFFV dropped -18.96% vs CSPF's -3.06%.

Which ETF is better, PFFV or CSPF?

On 1-year performance, CSPF leads with 6.91% vs 3.17% for PFFV. On fees, PFFV is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, CSPF has been the lower-risk option at 0.88%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PFFV or CSPF?

Over the 1-year period, CSPF has performed better with a 6.91% return vs 3.17%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PFFV or CSPF?

PFFV is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for CSPF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, PFFV or CSPF?

PFFV has the higher dividend yield at 7.50%, compared with 5.34% for CSPF.

What is the main difference between PFFV and CSPF?

They also come from different issuers: Global X and Cohen & Steers. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for PFFV and 0.59% for CSPF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CSPF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.72 vs 0.75), 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.