RAAA vs. CSHI

Last updated Jul 31, 2026

RAAA (Reckoner Leveraged AAA CLO ETF) and CSHI (NEOS Enhanced Income 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RAAA is a CLO fund actively managed by Reckoner, while CSHI is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by Neos. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, RAAA returned 5.39% vs 5.06% for CSHI. Their 0.04 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. RAAA charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.38%/yr for CSHI.

Performance

RAAA vs. CSHI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Reckoner Leveraged AAA CLO ETF (RAAA) and NEOS Enhanced Income 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF (CSHI). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with RAAA having a 3.09% return and CSHI slightly lower at 2.94%.

RAAA

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 0.35%
• 6M: 2.39%
• YTD: 3.09%
• 1Y: 5.39%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 5.37%

CSHI

• 1D: 0.06%
• 1M: 0.37%
• 6M: 2.67%
• YTD: 2.94%
• 1Y: 5.06%
• 3Y*: 5.40%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 5.44%

*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)
CSHI NEOS Enhanced Income 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF	$23.48M	$27.25M	$29.27M
RAAA Reckoner Leveraged AAA CLO ETF	$54.87K	$111.83K	$107.84K

RAAA vs. CSHI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
RAAA Reckoner Leveraged AAA CLO ETF	3.09%	2.52%
CSHI NEOS Enhanced Income 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF	2.94%	2.27%

Correlation

The correlation between RAAA and CSHI is 0.05, meaning there was essentially no consistent relationship between their historical price movements. Each responded to its own set of market drivers.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.05
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 9, 2025	0.04

Return for Risk

RAAA vs. CSHI — Risk / Return Rank

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

RAAA

RAAA Risk / Return Rank: 98
RAAA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 98
RAAA Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
RAAA Omega Ratio Rank: 98
RAAA Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
RAAA Martin Ratio Rank: 98

CSHI

CSHI Risk / Return Rank: 99
CSHI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
CSHI Sortino Ratio Rank: 99
CSHI Omega Ratio Rank: 99
CSHI Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
CSHI Martin Ratio Rank: 99

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.

RAAA vs. CSHI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Reckoner Leveraged AAA CLO ETF (RAAA) and NEOS Enhanced Income 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF (CSHI). 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.

	RAAA	CSHI	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	4.08	5.98	-1.90
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	5.89	10.90	-5.01
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	2.13	2.76	-0.63
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	7.64	23.98	-16.34
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	42.70	138.93	-96.23

RAAA vs. CSHI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RAAA Sharpe Ratio is 4.08, which is lower than the CSHI Sharpe Ratio of 5.98. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RAAA and CSHI, 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

RAAA vs. CSHI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RAAA drawdown since its inception was -0.71%, smaller than the maximum CSHI drawdown of -1.69%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RAAA and CSHI.

Drawdown Indicators

	RAAA	CSHI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-0.71%	-1.69%	+0.98%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.71%	-0.21%	-0.50%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-1.69%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.05%	-0.03%	-0.02%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.13%	0.04%	+0.09%

Volatility

RAAA vs. CSHI - Volatility Comparison

Reckoner Leveraged AAA CLO ETF (RAAA) has a higher volatility of 0.14% compared to NEOS Enhanced Income 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF (CSHI) at 0.11%. This indicates that RAAA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CSHI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RAAA	CSHI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.14%	0.11%	+0.03%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	0.95%	0.57%	+0.38%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.33%	0.85%	+0.48%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	1.30%	1.31%	-0.01%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	1.30%	1.31%	-0.01%

RAAA vs. CSHI - Expense Ratio Comparison

RAAA has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is lower than CSHI's 0.38% expense ratio.

Dividends

RAAA vs. CSHI - Dividend Comparison

RAAA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.20%, more than CSHI's 4.83% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
CSHI NEOS Enhanced Income 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF	4.83%	5.11%	5.72%	6.15%	1.52%
RAAA Reckoner Leveraged AAA CLO ETF	5.20%	2.70%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RAAA and CSHI in my portfolio?

RAAA and CSHI have a correlation of 0.05, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RAAA or CSHI?

RAAA has higher volatility (0.14%) compared to CSHI (0.11%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RAAA dropped -0.71% vs CSHI's -1.69%.

Which ETF is better, RAAA or CSHI?

On 1-year performance, RAAA leads with 5.39% vs 5.06% for CSHI. On fees, RAAA is cheaper at 0.30% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RAAA or CSHI?

Over the 1-year period, RAAA has performed better with a 5.39% return vs 5.06%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RAAA or CSHI?

RAAA is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.38% for CSHI.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RAAA or CSHI?

RAAA has the higher dividend yield at 5.20%, compared with 4.83% for CSHI.

What is the main difference between RAAA and CSHI?

RAAA is categorized as CLO, while CSHI is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: Reckoner and Neos. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for RAAA and 0.38% for CSHI.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CSHI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (5.98 vs 4.08), 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.