SCSB vs. CEFS
SCSB (Sterling Capital Short Duration Bond ETF) and CEFS (Saba Closed-End Funds ETF) are both Actively Managed funds. Both are actively managed. Their 0.33 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. SCSB charges 0.33%/yr vs 2.61%/yr for CEFS.
Performance
SCSB vs. CEFS - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
SCSB
- 1D
- 0.12%
- 1M
- 0.04%
- 6M
- —
- YTD
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- —
CEFS
- 1D
- 1.35%
- 1M
- -2.84%
- 6M
- 9.54%
- YTD
- 11.97%
- 1Y
- 19.55%
- 3Y*
- 18.85%
- 5Y*
- 13.53%
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- 11.75%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $2.25M | $2.12M | $2.23M | |
| $168.03K | $122.36K | $90.19K |
SCSB vs. CEFS - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
SCSB Sterling Capital Short Duration Bond ETF | 1.06% |
CEFS Saba Closed-End Funds ETF | 14.32% |
Correlation
The correlation between SCSB and CEFS is 0.33, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 30, 2026 | 0.33 |
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
SCSB vs. CEFS — Risk / Return Rank
SCSB
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
CEFS
SCSB vs. CEFS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Sterling Capital Short Duration Bond ETF (SCSB) and Saba Closed-End Funds ETF (CEFS). 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.
| SCSB | CEFS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.33 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 3.46 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 12.03 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
SCSB vs. CEFS - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum SCSB drawdown since its inception was -0.52%, smaller than the maximum CEFS drawdown of -38.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SCSB and CEFS.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| SCSB | CEFS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -0.52% | -38.99% | +38.47% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -5.67% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -13.37% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -16.85% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.16% | -3.22% | +3.06% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.10% | -3.63% | +3.53% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 1.63% | — |
Volatility
SCSB vs. CEFS - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| SCSB | CEFS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 3.20% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 9.45% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.60% | 10.90% | -9.30% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 1.60% | 13.23% | -11.63% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 1.60% | 15.30% | -13.70% |
SCSB vs. CEFS - Expense Ratio Comparison
SCSB has a 0.33% expense ratio, which is lower than CEFS's 2.61% expense ratio.
Dividends
SCSB vs. CEFS - Dividend Comparison
SCSB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.62%, less than CEFS's 7.29% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CEFS Saba Closed-End Funds ETF | 7.29% | 7.84% | 8.79% | 9.20% | 11.32% | 10.73% | 8.61% | 8.10% | 10.43% | 5.02% |
SCSB Sterling Capital Short Duration Bond ETF | 1.62% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
SCSB and CEFS have a correlation of 0.33, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, SCSB is cheaper at 0.33% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
SCSB is cheaper with a 0.33% expense ratio, compared with 2.61% for CEFS.
CEFS has the higher dividend yield at 7.29%, compared with 1.62% for SCSB.
They also come from different issuers: Sterling Capital and Exchange Traded Concepts. Their fees differ too: 0.33% for SCSB and 2.61% for CEFS.
Find the right allocation for SCSB and CEFS
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