PGF vs. CSSD
PGF (Invesco Financial Preferred ETF) and CSSD (Cohen & Steers Short Duration Preferred and Income Active ETF) are both Preferred Stock/Convertible Bonds funds. PGF is passively managed, while CSSD is actively managed. At a 0.47 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. PGF charges 0.62%/yr vs 0.49%/yr for CSSD.
Performance
PGF vs. CSSD - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, PGF achieves a -0.50% return, which is significantly lower than CSSD's 2.86% return.
PGF
- 1D
- 0.07%
- 1M
- -0.19%
- YTD
- -0.50%
- 6M
- -0.57%
- 1Y
- 2.62%
- 3Y*
- 4.86%
- 5Y*
- -0.95%
- 10Y*
- 2.29%
CSSD
- 1D
- 0.14%
- 1M
- 0.82%
- YTD
- 2.86%
- 6M
- 2.93%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
PGF vs. CSSD - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
PGF Invesco Financial Preferred ETF | -0.50% | 0.94% |
CSSD Cohen & Steers Short Duration Preferred and Income Active ETF | 2.86% | 0.49% |
Correlation
The correlation between PGF and CSSD is 0.47, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 10, 2025 | 0.47 |
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
PGF vs. CSSD — Risk / Return Rank
PGF
CSSD
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
PGF vs. CSSD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Financial Preferred ETF (PGF) and Cohen & Steers Short Duration Preferred and Income Active ETF (CSSD). 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.
| PGF | CSSD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.07 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.56 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 1.11 | — | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
PGF vs. CSSD - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum PGF drawdown since its inception was -75.69%, which is greater than CSSD's maximum drawdown of -2.32%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PGF and CSSD.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| PGF | CSSD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -75.69% | -2.32% | -73.37% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -4.69% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -10.87% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -23.41% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -28.92% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -5.55% | -0.06% | -5.49% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -7.00% | -0.29% | -6.71% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.36% | — | — |
Volatility
PGF vs. CSSD - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| PGF | CSSD | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.49% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 4.10% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 6.29% | 3.07% | +3.22% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 11.38% | 3.07% | +8.31% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 12.01% | 3.07% | +8.94% |
PGF vs. CSSD - Expense Ratio Comparison
PGF has a 0.62% expense ratio, which is higher than CSSD's 0.49% expense ratio.
Dividends
PGF vs. CSSD - Dividend Comparison
PGF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.36%, more than CSSD's 2.62% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CSSD Cohen & Steers Short Duration Preferred and Income Active ETF | 2.62% | 0.53% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
PGF Invesco Financial Preferred ETF | 6.36% | 6.30% | 6.24% | 6.15% | 5.95% | 4.68% | 4.91% | 5.14% | 5.73% | 5.32% | 5.92% | 5.68% |
Frequently Asked Questions
PGF and CSSD have a correlation of 0.47, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, CSSD is cheaper at 0.49% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
CSSD is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.62% for PGF.
PGF has the higher dividend yield at 6.36%, compared with 2.62% for CSSD.
They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Cohen & Steers. Their fees differ too: 0.62% for PGF and 0.49% for CSSD.
Find the right allocation for PGF and CSSD
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