RULE vs. CLSM

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

RULE (Adaptive Core ETF) and CLSM (Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RULE is a Diversified Portfolio fund actively managed by Mohr Funds, while CLSM is a Tactical Allocation fund tracking the Actively Managed. RULE is actively managed, while CLSM is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, RULE returned 20.12%/yr vs 13.89%/yr for CLSM. A 0.67 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RULE charges 1.10%/yr vs 0.82%/yr for CLSM.

Performance

RULE vs. CLSM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Adaptive Core ETF (RULE) 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, RULE achieves a 44.43% return, which is significantly higher than CLSM's 20.91% return.

RULE

• 1D: 2.91%
• 1M: 20.61%
• YTD: 44.43%
• 6M: 45.11%
• 1Y: 51.95%
• 3Y*: 20.12%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CLSM

• 1D: 0.55%
• 1M: 9.14%
• YTD: 20.91%
• 6M: 20.97%
• 1Y: 35.30%
• 3Y*: 13.89%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RULE vs. CLSM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
RULE Adaptive Core ETF	44.43%	4.60%	7.59%	6.29%	-22.87%	1.03%
CLSM Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF	20.91%	15.32%	1.87%	3.78%	-23.23%	1.22%

Correlation

The correlation between RULE and CLSM is 0.85, 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	0.85
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.75
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 4, 2021	0.67

The correlation between RULE and CLSM shifts across timeframes, from 0.67 (all time) to 0.85 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

RULE vs. CLSM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RULE	CLSM
Technology	54.4%	51.8%
Industrials	13.2%	1.0%
Basic Materials	9.0%	0.4%
Healthcare	6.4%	1.4%
Financial Services	5.7%	0.1%
Communication Services	5.0%	5.5%
Consumer Cyclical	3.2%	4.4%
Energy	2.4%	0.2%
Consumer Defensive	0.8%	34.8%
Utilities	0.0%	0.5%
Real Estate	0.0%	0.0%

Return for Risk

RULE vs. CLSM — Risk / Return Rank

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

RULE

RULE Risk / Return Rank: 78
RULE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
RULE Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
RULE Omega Ratio Rank: 75
RULE Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
RULE Martin Ratio Rank: 82

CLSM

CLSM Risk / Return Rank: 82
CLSM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
CLSM Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
CLSM Omega Ratio Rank: 83
CLSM Calmar Ratio Rank: 81
CLSM Martin Ratio Rank: 84

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.

RULE vs. CLSM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Adaptive Core ETF (RULE) 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.

	RULE	CLSM	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.58	2.79	-0.22
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.46	3.68	-0.23
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.45	1.51	-0.06
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.13	4.25	-0.12
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	16.91	17.62	-0.71
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RULE vs. CLSM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RULE Sharpe Ratio is 2.58, which is comparable to the CLSM Sharpe Ratio of 2.79. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RULE 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

	RULE	CLSM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.58	2.79	-0.22
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.46	0.35	+0.10

Drawdowns

RULE vs. CLSM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RULE drawdown since its inception was -30.48%, which is greater than CLSM's maximum drawdown of -27.77%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RULE and CLSM.

Drawdown Indicators

	RULE	CLSM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-30.48%	-27.77%	-2.71%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.65%	-8.50%	-4.15%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.21%	-14.60%	-5.61%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-14.99%	-16.50%	+1.51%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.09%	2.05%	+1.04%

Volatility

RULE vs. CLSM - Volatility Comparison

Adaptive Core ETF (RULE) has a higher volatility of 9.65% compared to Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF (CLSM) at 3.60%. This indicates that RULE's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CLSM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RULE	CLSM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.65%	3.60%	+6.05%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.55%	10.58%	+6.97%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.25%	12.70%	+7.55%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.83%	12.47%	+2.36%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.83%	12.47%	+2.36%

RULE vs. CLSM - Expense Ratio Comparison

RULE has a 1.10% expense ratio, which is higher than CLSM's 0.82% expense ratio.

Dividends

RULE vs. CLSM - Dividend Comparison

RULE has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CLSM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.74%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
CLSM Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF	0.74%	0.90%	2.13%	2.58%	3.17%	0.59%
RULE Adaptive Core ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	2.01%	0.01%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RULE and CLSM in my portfolio?

RULE and CLSM have a correlation of 0.85, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RULE or CLSM?

RULE has higher volatility (9.65%) compared to CLSM (3.60%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RULE dropped -30.48% vs CLSM's -27.77%.

Which ETF is better, RULE or CLSM?

On 3-year performance, RULE leads with 20.12% vs 13.89% for CLSM. On fees, CLSM is cheaper at 0.82% per year. On volatility, CLSM has been the lower-risk option at 3.60%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RULE or CLSM?

Over the 3-year period, RULE has performed better with a 20.12% return vs 13.89%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RULE or CLSM?

CLSM is cheaper with a 0.82% expense ratio, compared with 1.10% for RULE.

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

CLSM has the higher dividend yield at 0.74%, compared with 0.00% for RULE.

What is the main difference between RULE and CLSM?

RULE is categorized as Diversified Portfolio, while CLSM is Tactical Allocation. They also come from different issuers: Mohr Funds and Cabana. Their fees differ too: 1.10% for RULE and 0.82% for CLSM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CLSM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.79 vs 2.58), 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.