TBFG vs. CLSM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

TBFG (The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF) and CLSM (Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF) are both Tactical Allocation funds. TBFG is actively managed, while CLSM is passively managed. Over the past year, TBFG returned 24.53% vs 34.21% for CLSM. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. TBFG charges 0.42%/yr vs 0.82%/yr for CLSM.

Performance

TBFG vs. CLSM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF (TBFG) 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, TBFG achieves a 10.35% return, which is significantly lower than CLSM's 20.45% return.

TBFG

• 1D: -0.36%
• 1M: 4.39%
• YTD: 10.35%
• 6M: 11.14%
• 1Y: 24.53%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CLSM

• 1D: -0.38%
• 1M: 9.23%
• YTD: 20.45%
• 6M: 20.19%
• 1Y: 34.21%
• 3Y*: 13.75%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

TBFG vs. CLSM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
TBFG The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF	10.35%	14.56%	10.48%
CLSM Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF	20.45%	15.32%	3.56%

Correlation

The correlation between TBFG and CLSM is 0.90, 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	0.90
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 17, 2024	0.87

The correlation between TBFG and CLSM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.87 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.

TBFG vs. CLSM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	TBFG	CLSM
Technology	21.5%	51.8%
Financial Services	17.7%	0.1%
Industrials	13.3%	1.0%
Consumer Cyclical	8.4%	4.4%
Healthcare	8.3%	1.4%
Energy	7.0%	0.2%
Communication Services	6.0%	5.5%
Basic Materials	6.0%	0.4%
Consumer Defensive	5.8%	34.8%
Utilities	3.4%	0.5%
Real Estate	2.4%	0.0%

Return for Risk

TBFG vs. CLSM — Risk / Return Rank

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

TBFG

TBFG Risk / Return Rank: 75
TBFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
TBFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 79
TBFG Omega Ratio Rank: 79
TBFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 65
TBFG Martin Ratio Rank: 74

CLSM

CLSM Risk / Return Rank: 82
CLSM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
CLSM Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
CLSM Omega Ratio Rank: 83
CLSM Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
CLSM Martin Ratio Rank: 83

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.

TBFG vs. CLSM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF (TBFG) 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.

	TBFG	CLSM	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.53	2.71	-0.18
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.54	3.58	-0.04
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.47	1.50	-0.03
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.23	4.04	-0.82
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	13.95	16.72	-2.76
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

TBFG vs. CLSM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TBFG Sharpe Ratio is 2.53, which is comparable to the CLSM Sharpe Ratio of 2.71. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TBFG 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

	TBFG	CLSM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.53	2.71	-0.18
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.38	0.35	+1.04

Drawdowns

TBFG vs. CLSM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TBFG drawdown since its inception was -13.43%, smaller than the maximum CLSM drawdown of -27.77%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TBFG and CLSM.

Drawdown Indicators

	TBFG	CLSM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.43%	-27.77%	+14.34%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.63%	-8.50%	+0.87%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-14.60%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.36%	-0.38%	+0.02%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.63%	-16.49%	+14.86%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.76%	2.05%	-0.29%

Volatility

TBFG vs. CLSM - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF (TBFG) is 3.00%, while Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF (CLSM) has a volatility of 3.58%. This indicates that TBFG 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

	TBFG	CLSM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.00%	3.58%	-0.58%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.00%	10.54%	-2.54%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.73%	12.70%	-2.97%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.95%	12.47%	-1.52%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.95%	12.47%	-1.52%

TBFG vs. CLSM - Expense Ratio Comparison

TBFG has a 0.42% expense ratio, which is lower than CLSM's 0.82% expense ratio.

Dividends

TBFG vs. CLSM - Dividend Comparison

TBFG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.35%, more than CLSM's 0.75% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
CLSM Cabana Target Leading Sector Moderate ETF	0.75%	0.90%	2.13%	2.58%	3.17%	0.59%
TBFG The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF	2.35%	2.65%	2.43%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TBFG and CLSM in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.90, TBFG and CLSM move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, TBFG or CLSM?

CLSM has higher volatility (3.58%) compared to TBFG (3.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TBFG dropped -13.43% vs CLSM's -27.77%.

Which ETF is better, TBFG or CLSM?

On 1-year performance, CLSM leads with 34.21% vs 24.53% for TBFG. On fees, TBFG is cheaper at 0.42% per year. On volatility, TBFG has been the lower-risk option at 3.00%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TBFG or CLSM?

Over the 1-year period, CLSM has performed better with a 34.21% return vs 24.53%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TBFG or CLSM?

TBFG is cheaper with a 0.42% expense ratio, compared with 0.82% for CLSM.

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

TBFG has the higher dividend yield at 2.35%, compared with 0.75% for CLSM.

What is the main difference between TBFG and CLSM?

They also come from different issuers: The Brinsmere Funds and Cabana. Their fees differ too: 0.42% for TBFG and 0.82% for CLSM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CLSM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.71 vs 2.53), 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.