TMFS vs. CSHP

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

TMFS (Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF) and CSHP (iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - TMFS is a Small Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by Motley Fool, while CSHP is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by iShares. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, TMFS returned -1.24% vs 3.94% for CSHP. At a 0.06 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. TMFS charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for CSHP.

Performance

TMFS vs. CSHP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF (TMFS) 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, TMFS achieves a -0.78% return, which is significantly lower than CSHP's 1.83% return.

TMFS

• 1D: -1.17%
• 1M: 0.84%
• YTD: -0.78%
• 6M: -4.22%
• 1Y: -1.24%
• 3Y*: 7.66%
• 5Y*: -2.26%
• 10Y*: —

CSHP

• 1D: -0.03%
• 1M: 0.27%
• YTD: 1.83%
• 6M: 1.92%
• 1Y: 3.94%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

TMFS vs. CSHP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
TMFS Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF	-0.78%	-1.59%	4.94%
CSHP iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF	1.83%	4.10%	2.24%

Correlation

The correlation between TMFS and CSHP is -0.10, 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	-0.10
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 18, 2024	0.06

The correlation between TMFS and CSHP shifts across timeframes, from -0.10 (1 year) to 0.06 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

TMFS vs. CSHP — Risk / Return Rank

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

TMFS

TMFS Risk / Return Rank: 8
TMFS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8
TMFS Sortino Ratio Rank: 8
TMFS Omega Ratio Rank: 8
TMFS Calmar Ratio Rank: 8
TMFS Martin Ratio Rank: 8

CSHP

CSHP Risk / Return Rank: 99
CSHP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
CSHP Sortino Ratio Rank: 99
CSHP Omega Ratio Rank: 99
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.

TMFS vs. CSHP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF (TMFS) 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.

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.

	TMFS	CSHP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.06	11.09	-11.15
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.06	27.60	-27.54
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.01	6.46	-5.45
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.08	65.45	-65.53
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.21	381.67	-381.88

TMFS vs. CSHP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TMFS Sharpe Ratio is -0.06, which is lower than the CSHP Sharpe Ratio of 11.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TMFS 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.

Drawdowns

TMFS vs. CSHP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TMFS drawdown since its inception was -48.79%, which is greater than CSHP's maximum drawdown of -0.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TMFS and CSHP.

Drawdown Indicators

	TMFS	CSHP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-48.79%	-0.08%	-48.71%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.73%	-0.06%	-15.67%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-27.05%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-45.68%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-19.61%	-0.04%	-19.57%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-19.47%	-0.00%	-19.47%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.91%	0.01%	+5.90%

Volatility

TMFS vs. CSHP - Volatility Comparison

Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF (TMFS) has a higher volatility of 5.81% compared to iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF (CSHP) at 0.16%. This indicates that TMFS'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

	TMFS	CSHP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.81%	0.16%	+5.65%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.28%	0.27%	+14.01%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.01%	0.36%	+19.65%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	23.01%	0.41%	+22.60%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.50%	0.41%	+25.09%

TMFS vs. CSHP - Expense Ratio Comparison

TMFS has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than CSHP's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

TMFS vs. CSHP - Dividend Comparison

TMFS has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CSHP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.91%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
CSHP iShares Enhanced Short-Term Bond Active ETF	3.91%	5.39%	1.96%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
TMFS Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.34%	2.37%	5.57%	2.65%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TMFS and CSHP in my portfolio?

TMFS and CSHP have a correlation of -0.10, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, TMFS or CSHP?

TMFS has higher volatility (5.81%) compared to CSHP (0.16%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TMFS dropped -48.79% vs CSHP's -0.08%.

Which ETF is better, TMFS or CSHP?

On 1-year performance, CSHP leads with 3.94% vs -1.24% for TMFS. On fees, CSHP is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, CSHP has been the lower-risk option at 0.16%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TMFS or CSHP?

Over the 1-year period, CSHP has performed better with a 3.94% return vs -1.24%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TMFS or CSHP?

CSHP is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for TMFS.

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

CSHP has the higher dividend yield at 3.91%, compared with 0.00% for TMFS.

What is the main difference between TMFS and CSHP?

TMFS is categorized as Small Cap Growth Equities, while CSHP is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: Motley Fool and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for TMFS and 0.20% for CSHP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CSHP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (11.09 vs -0.06), 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.