TBFC vs. CSHP

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

TBFC (The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF) and CSHP (iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - TBFC is a Tactical Allocation fund actively managed by Brinsmere, while CSHP is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by iShares. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, TBFC returned 15.23% vs 3.94% for CSHP. At a correlation of -0.00, they often move in opposite directions. TBFC charges 0.44%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for CSHP.

Performance

TBFC vs. CSHP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF (TBFC) and iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF (CSHP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, TBFC achieves a 5.77% return, which is significantly higher than CSHP's 1.62% return.

TBFC

• 1D: 0.08%
• 1M: 2.07%
• YTD: 5.77%
• 6M: 6.35%
• 1Y: 15.23%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CSHP

• 1D: -0.02%
• 1M: 0.24%
• YTD: 1.62%
• 6M: 1.86%
• 1Y: 3.94%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

TBFC vs. CSHP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
TBFC The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF	5.77%	11.38%	1.05%
CSHP iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF	1.62%	4.10%	2.24%

Correlation

The correlation between TBFC and CSHP is -0.15, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.15
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 19, 2024	-0.00

The correlation between TBFC and CSHP shifts across timeframes, from -0.15 (1 year) to -0.00 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

TBFC vs. CSHP - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	TBFC	CSHP
Technology	21.1%	-
Financial Services	18.0%	0.1%
Industrials	12.7%	-
Healthcare	8.9%	-
Consumer Cyclical	8.1%	-
Energy	7.3%	-
Consumer Defensive	6.3%	-
Communication Services	6.0%	-
Basic Materials	5.7%	-
Utilities	3.8%	-
Real Estate	2.1%	-

Return for Risk

TBFC vs. CSHP — Risk / Return Rank

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

TBFC

TBFC Risk / Return Rank: 71
TBFC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
TBFC Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
TBFC Omega Ratio Rank: 79
TBFC Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
TBFC Martin Ratio Rank: 66

CSHP

CSHP Risk / Return Rank: 100
CSHP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
CSHP Sortino Ratio Rank: 100
CSHP Omega Ratio Rank: 100
CSHP Calmar Ratio Rank: 100
CSHP Martin Ratio Rank: 100

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.

TBFC vs. CSHP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF (TBFC) and iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF (CSHP). 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.

	TBFC	CSHP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.41	11.82	-9.41
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.44	30.91	-27.47
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.46	7.26	-5.80
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.81	65.45	-62.64
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.86	428.15	-416.29
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

TBFC vs. CSHP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TBFC Sharpe Ratio is 2.41, which is lower than the CSHP Sharpe Ratio of 11.82. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TBFC and CSHP, 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

	TBFC	CSHP	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.41	11.82	-9.41
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.51	10.70	-9.19

Drawdowns

TBFC vs. CSHP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TBFC drawdown since its inception was -8.89%, which is greater than CSHP's maximum drawdown of -0.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TBFC and CSHP.

Drawdown Indicators

	TBFC	CSHP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-8.89%	-0.08%	-8.81%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.45%	-0.06%	-5.39%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.23%	-0.02%	-0.21%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.06%	-0.00%	-1.06%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.29%	0.01%	+1.28%

Volatility

TBFC vs. CSHP - Volatility Comparison

The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF (TBFC) has a higher volatility of 2.06% compared to iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF (CSHP) at 0.08%. This indicates that TBFC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CSHP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	TBFC	CSHP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.06%	0.08%	+1.98%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.24%	0.24%	+5.00%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.35%	0.33%	+6.02%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.14%	0.40%	+6.74%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.14%	0.40%	+6.74%

TBFC vs. CSHP - Expense Ratio Comparison

TBFC has a 0.44% expense ratio, which is higher than CSHP's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

TBFC vs. CSHP - Dividend Comparison

TBFC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.93%, less than CSHP's 3.92% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
CSHP iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF	3.92%	5.39%	1.96%
TBFC The Brinsmere Fund - Conservative ETF	2.93%	3.28%	2.98%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TBFC and CSHP in my portfolio?

TBFC and CSHP have a correlation of -0.15, 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 CSHP?

TBFC has higher volatility (2.06%) compared to CSHP (0.08%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TBFC dropped -8.89% vs CSHP's -0.08%.

Which ETF is better, TBFC or CSHP?

On 1-year performance, TBFC leads with 15.23% vs 3.94% for CSHP. On fees, CSHP is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, CSHP has been the lower-risk option at 0.08%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TBFC or CSHP?

Over the 1-year period, TBFC has performed better with a 15.23% return vs 3.94%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TBFC or CSHP?

CSHP is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.44% for TBFC.

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

CSHP has the higher dividend yield at 3.92%, compared with 2.93% for TBFC.

What is the main difference between TBFC and CSHP?

TBFC is categorized as Tactical Allocation, while CSHP is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: Brinsmere and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.44% for TBFC and 0.20% for CSHP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CSHP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (11.82 vs 2.41), 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.