PWS vs. CLSM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

PWS (Pacer WealthShield ETF) and CLSM (Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - PWS is a Diversified Portfolio fund tracking the Pacer WealthShield Index, while CLSM is a Tactical Allocation fund tracking the Actively Managed. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, PWS returned 7.37%/yr vs 13.75%/yr for CLSM. A 0.53 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. PWS charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.82%/yr for CLSM.

Performance

PWS vs. CLSM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Pacer WealthShield ETF (PWS) 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, PWS achieves a -2.18% return, which is significantly lower than CLSM's 20.45% return.

PWS

• 1D: 1.03%
• 1M: -0.99%
• YTD: -2.18%
• 6M: -3.95%
• 1Y: 7.28%
• 3Y*: 7.37%
• 5Y*: 0.31%
• 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)

PWS vs. CLSM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
PWS Pacer WealthShield ETF	-2.18%	8.05%	14.01%	-3.58%	-12.10%	2.47%
CLSM Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF	20.45%	15.32%	1.87%	3.78%	-23.23%	9.10%

Correlation

The correlation between PWS and CLSM is 0.62, 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	0.62
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.56
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 14, 2021	0.53

The correlation between PWS and CLSM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.53 to 0.62 - a consistent structural relationship.

PWS vs. CLSM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PWS	CLSM
Healthcare	39.6%	1.4%
Technology	20.6%	51.8%
Consumer Cyclical	19.7%	4.4%
Industrials	19.0%	1.0%
Utilities	0.8%	0.5%
Communication Services	0.2%	5.5%
Energy	0.0%	0.2%
Basic Materials	-	0.4%
Consumer Defensive	-	34.8%
Financial Services	-	0.1%
Real Estate	-	0.0%

Return for Risk

PWS vs. CLSM — Risk / Return Rank

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

PWS

PWS Risk / Return Rank: 21
PWS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 19
PWS Sortino Ratio Rank: 19
PWS Omega Ratio Rank: 19
PWS Calmar Ratio Rank: 24
PWS Martin Ratio Rank: 22

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.

PWS vs. CLSM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Pacer WealthShield ETF (PWS) 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.

	PWS	CLSM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.64	2.71	-2.07
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.96	3.58	-2.62
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.12	1.50	-0.37
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.06	4.04	-2.98
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.64	16.72	-14.08
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

PWS vs. CLSM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PWS Sharpe Ratio is 0.64, which is lower than the CLSM Sharpe Ratio of 2.71. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PWS 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

	PWS	CLSM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.64	2.71	-2.07
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.03	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.29	0.35	-0.06

Drawdowns

PWS vs. CLSM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PWS drawdown since its inception was -24.93%, smaller than the maximum CLSM drawdown of -27.77%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PWS and CLSM.

Drawdown Indicators

	PWS	CLSM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.93%	-27.77%	+2.84%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.88%	-8.50%	+1.62%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-10.47%	-14.60%	+4.13%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.93%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.92%	-0.38%	-5.54%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.11%	-16.49%	+7.38%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.76%	2.05%	+0.71%

Volatility

PWS vs. CLSM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Pacer WealthShield ETF (PWS) is 2.64%, while Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF (CLSM) has a volatility of 3.58%. This indicates that PWS 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

	PWS	CLSM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.64%	3.58%	-0.94%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.18%	10.54%	-3.36%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.47%	12.70%	-1.23%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.93%	12.47%	-0.54%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.39%	12.47%	+1.92%

PWS vs. CLSM - Expense Ratio Comparison

PWS has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than CLSM's 0.82% expense ratio.

Dividends

PWS vs. CLSM - Dividend Comparison

PWS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.49%, more than CLSM's 0.75% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
CLSM Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF	0.75%	0.90%	2.13%	2.58%	3.17%	0.59%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
PWS Pacer WealthShield ETF	1.49%	1.59%	1.33%	2.21%	1.45%	0.94%	0.53%	1.77%	1.16%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PWS and CLSM in my portfolio?

PWS and CLSM have a correlation of 0.62, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PWS or CLSM?

CLSM has higher volatility (3.58%) compared to PWS (2.64%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PWS dropped -24.93% vs CLSM's -27.77%.

Which ETF is better, PWS or CLSM?

On 3-year performance, CLSM leads with 13.75% vs 7.37% for PWS. On fees, PWS is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, PWS has been the lower-risk option at 2.64%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PWS or CLSM?

Over the 3-year period, CLSM has performed better with a 13.75% return vs 7.37%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PWS or CLSM?

PWS is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.82% for CLSM.

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

PWS has the higher dividend yield at 1.49%, compared with 0.75% for CLSM.

What is the main difference between PWS and CLSM?

PWS is categorized as Diversified Portfolio, while CLSM is Tactical Allocation. PWS tracks Pacer WealthShield Index, while CLSM tracks Actively Managed. They also come from different issuers: Pacer and Cabana. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for PWS and 0.82% for CLSM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CLSM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.71 vs 0.64), 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.