RAA vs. CLSM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RAA (SMI 3Fourteen REAL Asset Allocation ETF) and CLSM (Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RAA is a Diversified Portfolio fund actively managed by SMI Advisory Services, while CLSM is a Tactical Allocation fund tracking the Actively Managed. RAA is actively managed, while CLSM is passively managed. Over the past year, RAA returned 24.53% vs 34.21% for CLSM. Their correlation of 0.92 suggests significant overlap in exposure. RAA charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.82%/yr for CLSM.

Performance

RAA vs. CLSM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SMI 3Fourteen REAL Asset Allocation ETF (RAA) 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, RAA achieves a 11.05% return, which is significantly lower than CLSM's 20.45% return.

RAA

• 1D: -0.40%
• 1M: 3.67%
• YTD: 11.05%
• 6M: 11.04%
• 1Y: 24.53%
• 3Y*: —
• 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)

RAA vs. CLSM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
RAA SMI 3Fourteen REAL Asset Allocation ETF	11.05%	12.12%
CLSM Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF	20.45%	13.80%

Correlation

The correlation between RAA and CLSM is 0.93, 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	0.93
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 27, 2025	0.92

The correlation between RAA and CLSM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.92 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

RAA vs. CLSM — Risk / Return Rank

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

RAA

RAA Risk / Return Rank: 81
RAA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
RAA Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
RAA Omega Ratio Rank: 80
RAA Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
RAA Martin Ratio Rank: 83

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.

RAA vs. CLSM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SMI 3Fourteen REAL Asset Allocation ETF (RAA) 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.

	RAA	CLSM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.60	2.71	-0.11
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.57	3.58	-0.01
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.48	1.50	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.17	4.04	+0.12
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.80	16.72	+0.08
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RAA vs. CLSM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RAA Sharpe Ratio is 2.60, which is comparable to the CLSM Sharpe Ratio of 2.71. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RAA 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

	RAA	CLSM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.60	2.71	-0.11
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.49	0.35	+1.15

Drawdowns

RAA vs. CLSM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RAA drawdown since its inception was -11.80%, smaller than the maximum CLSM drawdown of -27.77%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RAA and CLSM.

Drawdown Indicators

	RAA	CLSM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.80%	-27.77%	+15.97%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.91%	-8.50%	+2.59%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-14.60%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.40%	-0.38%	-0.02%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.41%	-16.49%	+15.08%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.46%	2.05%	-0.59%

Volatility

RAA vs. CLSM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for SMI 3Fourteen REAL Asset Allocation ETF (RAA) is 2.92%, while Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF (CLSM) has a volatility of 3.58%. This indicates that RAA 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

	RAA	CLSM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.92%	3.58%	-0.66%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.44%	10.54%	-3.10%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.49%	12.70%	-3.21%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.71%	12.47%	+0.24%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.71%	12.47%	+0.24%

RAA vs. CLSM - Expense Ratio Comparison

RAA has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than CLSM's 0.82% expense ratio.

Dividends

RAA vs. CLSM - Dividend Comparison

RAA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.10%, 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%
RAA SMI 3Fourteen REAL Asset Allocation ETF	2.10%	2.14%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RAA and CLSM in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.93, RAA 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, RAA or CLSM?

CLSM has higher volatility (3.58%) compared to RAA (2.92%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RAA dropped -11.80% vs CLSM's -27.77%.

Which ETF is better, RAA or CLSM?

On 1-year performance, CLSM leads with 34.21% vs 24.53% for RAA. On fees, CLSM is cheaper at 0.82% per year. On volatility, RAA has been the lower-risk option at 2.92%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RAA or CLSM?

Over the 1-year period, CLSM has performed better with a 34.21% return vs 24.53%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RAA or CLSM?

CLSM is cheaper with a 0.82% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for RAA.

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

RAA has the higher dividend yield at 2.10%, compared with 0.75% for CLSM.

What is the main difference between RAA and CLSM?

RAA is categorized as Diversified Portfolio, while CLSM is Tactical Allocation. They also come from different issuers: SMI Advisory Services and Cabana. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for RAA and 0.82% for CLSM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CLSM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.71 vs 2.60), 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.