TBFC vs. CLSM

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

TBFC (The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF) and CLSM (ETC Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF) are both Tactical Allocation funds. TBFC is actively managed, while CLSM is passively managed. Over the past year, TBFC returned 10.92% vs 23.29% for CLSM. Their correlation of 0.85 means they have usually moved in the same direction. TBFC charges 0.44%/yr vs 0.82%/yr for CLSM.

Performance

TBFC vs. CLSM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF (TBFC) and ETC 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, TBFC achieves a 4.18% return, which is significantly lower than CLSM's 13.76% return.

TBFC

• 1D: -0.11%
• 1M: -0.83%
• 6M: 1.95%
• YTD: 4.18%
• 1Y: 10.92%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 9.39%

CLSM

• 1D: -0.06%
• 1M: -2.10%
• 6M: 10.80%
• YTD: 13.76%
• 1Y: 23.29%
• 3Y*: 10.82%
• 5Y*: 2.98%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 2.85%

*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)
CLSM ETC Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF	$170.87K	$557.41K	$324.92K
TBFC The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF	$27.39K	$40.55K	$64.29K

TBFC vs. CLSM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
TBFC The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF	4.18%	11.38%	8.22%
CLSM ETC Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF	13.76%	15.32%	2.71%

Correlation

The correlation between TBFC and CLSM is 0.90, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.90
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 16, 2024	0.85

The correlation between TBFC and CLSM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

TBFC vs. CLSM — Risk / Return Rank

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

TBFC

TBFC Risk / Return Rank: 63
TBFC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
TBFC Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
TBFC Omega Ratio Rank: 67
TBFC Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
TBFC Martin Ratio Rank: 64

CLSM

CLSM Risk / Return Rank: 67
CLSM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
CLSM Sortino Ratio Rank: 62
CLSM Omega Ratio Rank: 63
CLSM Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
CLSM Martin Ratio Rank: 68

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.

TBFC vs. CLSM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF (TBFC) and ETC 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.

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.

	TBFC	CLSM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.54	1.52	+0.02
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.17	2.09	+0.09
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.27	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.99	2.61	-0.63
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.79	8.32	-0.53

TBFC vs. CLSM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TBFC Sharpe Ratio is 1.54, which is comparable to the CLSM Sharpe Ratio of 1.52. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TBFC 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.

Drawdowns

TBFC vs. CLSM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TBFC drawdown since its inception was -8.89%, smaller than the maximum CLSM drawdown of -27.77%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TBFC and CLSM.

Drawdown Indicators

	TBFC	CLSM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-8.89%	-27.77%	+18.88%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.45%	-8.50%	+3.05%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-14.60%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-27.77%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.74%	-5.91%	+4.17%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.07%	-16.09%	+15.02%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.39%	2.66%	-1.27%

Volatility

TBFC vs. CLSM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF (TBFC) is 2.02%, while ETC Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF (CLSM) has a volatility of 4.38%. This indicates that TBFC 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

	TBFC	CLSM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.02%	4.38%	-2.36%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	6.03%	12.63%	-6.60%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.05%	14.63%	-7.58%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.26%	12.75%	-5.49%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.26%	12.75%	-5.49%

TBFC vs. CLSM - Expense Ratio Comparison

TBFC has a 0.44% expense ratio, which is lower than CLSM's 0.82% expense ratio.

Dividends

TBFC vs. CLSM - Dividend Comparison

TBFC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.03%, more than CLSM's 0.79% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
CLSM ETC Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF	0.79%	0.90%	2.13%	2.58%	3.17%	0.59%
TBFC The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF	3.03%	3.28%	2.98%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TBFC and CLSM in my portfolio?

TBFC and CLSM have a correlation of 0.90, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, TBFC or CLSM?

CLSM has higher volatility (4.38%) compared to TBFC (2.02%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TBFC dropped -8.89% vs CLSM's -27.77%.

Which ETF is better, TBFC or CLSM?

On 1-year performance, CLSM leads with 23.29% vs 10.92% for TBFC. On fees, TBFC is cheaper at 0.44% per year. On volatility, TBFC has been the lower-risk option at 2.02%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TBFC or CLSM?

Over the 1-year period, CLSM has performed better with a 23.29% return vs 10.92%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TBFC or CLSM?

TBFC is cheaper with a 0.44% expense ratio, compared with 0.82% for CLSM.

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

TBFC has the higher dividend yield at 3.03%, compared with 0.79% for CLSM.

What is the main difference between TBFC and CLSM?

They also come from different issuers: Brinsmere and Cabana. Their fees differ too: 0.44% for TBFC and 0.82% for CLSM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TBFC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.54 vs 1.52), 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.