Data as of Nov 4, 2026.
CSM vs FTLS: Correlation to the S&P 500
Over the year to Nov 4, 2026, FTLS moved less with the S&P 500 than CSM: correlation +0.83 against +0.98.
askIQ about this page
askIQ about CSM and FTLS
Net assets: $521m on Nov 4, 2026 for ProShares Large Cap Core Plus, and $2.6bn on Nov 3, 2026 for First Trust Long/Short Equity.
CSM in the 26 weeks SPY fell, year to Nov 4, 2026: SPY averaged −1.07%, CSM −0.97%.
FTLS in the 26 weeks SPY fell, year to Nov 4, 2026: SPY averaged −1.07%, FTLS −0.48%.
Pair scorecard
CSM costs 0.93 points a year less; their one-year returns differ by 5.9 points; FTLS is 5.1 times larger.
| Measure | CSM | FTLS |
|---|---|---|
| Return | ||
| Total return, 1 year | +14.4% | +8.5% |
| Against its benchmark | ||
| Treasury bills, 52 weeks | +3.7% | |
| Cost and size | ||
| Expense ratio | 0.45% | 1.38% |
| Net assets, as of Nov 3, 2026 | $512m | $2.6bn |
| Holdings | ||
| Holdings in common | not published | |
| Risk | ||
| Beta to the S&P 500 | +0.94: about 0.94% for each 1% | +0.48: about 0.48% for each 1% |
| Its average week when the S&P 500 fell | fell 0.97% | fell 0.48% |
Risk and return
Sep 19, 2014 to Oct 30, 2026 · 632 weekly returnsEach against its own benchmark: CSM against IVV, Jul 24, 2009 to Oct 30, 2026; FTLS against VOO, Sep 19, 2014 to Oct 30, 2026.
From Sep 2014 to Oct 2026, CSM returned more: +313.0% to +182.4%. FTLS swung less: 10.2% to 17.1%. FTLS fell less at its worst: −19.1% to −34.0%.
Full scorecard
19 measures, with how each is measured Open ↓
| Measure | CSM | FTLS | Edge | How it is measured |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Return | ||||
| Total return | +313.0% | +182.4% | CSM | Price change plus distributions, reinvested. |
| Annualized | +12.4% | +8.9% | CSM | Total return as a yearly rate. |
| Price return | +250.9% | +154.6% | CSM | Price change alone, distributions left out. |
| Risk | ||||
| Volatility | 17.1% | 10.2% | FTLS | Spread of weekly returns, annualized. Lower is steadier. |
| Downside deviation | 12.0% | 7.3% | FTLS | Like volatility, counting only weeks below the Treasury bill rate. |
| Max drawdown | −34.0% | −19.1% | FTLS | Deepest fall from a high to the low after it. |
| Upside capture | 100.2% | 49.3% | Share of its benchmark's rise caught in the weeks it rose. | |
| Downside capture | 100.9% | 67.0% | Share of its benchmark's fall taken in the weeks it fell. Lower is better. | |
| Beta | 1.02 | 0.55 | Not an edge | How far it moves for each 1% its benchmark moves. |
| R squared | 0.98 | 0.80 | Not an edge | Share of its weekly moves its benchmark explains. |
| Risk-adjusted | ||||
| Sharpe | 0.65 | 0.68 | FTLS (slight) | Return above Treasury bills per unit of volatility. |
| Sortino | 0.92 | 0.95 | FTLS (slight) | Return above Treasury bills per unit of downside deviation. |
| Treynor | 0.129 | 0.126 | Return above Treasury bills per unit of beta. | |
| Calmar | 0.36 | 0.47 | FTLS | Annualized return divided by the max drawdown. |
| Against the benchmark | ||||
| Benchmark | IVV | VOO | The ETF each fund is measured against. | |
| Alpha | −0.6% a year | +0.4% a year | Not significant | Yearly return beyond what its beta to the benchmark predicts. |
| Alpha t-stat | −0.91 | 0.30 | Not an edge | How sure the alpha is. Below 2, it could be chance. |
| Alpha range | −1.7% to +0.6% | −2.2% to +3.0% | Includes zero | The 95% range for the yearly alpha. |
| Information ratio | −0.14 | −0.57 | Return against its benchmark per unit of tracking error. | |
| Tracking error | 2.5% | 8.7% | Not an edge | How far weekly returns stray from the benchmark, annualized. |
Computed by ETFIQ from Tiingo daily prices and ETFIQ's distribution records, 632 weekly returns. Cash rate: the 13-week Treasury bill.
Window by window
| Total return | vs its benchmark | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Window | CSM | FTLS | CSM | FTLS |
| 3 months | −1.1% | +1.0% | −1.0 pts vs IVV | +1.1 pts vs VOO |
| 6 months | +4.9% | +3.6% | −0.1 pts vs IVV | −1.4 pts vs VOO |
| 1 year | +14.4% | +8.5% | −0.4 pts vs IVV | −6.3 pts vs VOO |
| 3 years | +83.6% | +46.9% | +0.2 pts vs IVV | −36.4 pts vs VOO |
| Since launchNot the same days: CSM Jul 2009 · FTLS Sep 2014 | +977.7% | +183.1% | not measured | −190.1 pts vs VOO |
Side by side
As of Nov 4, 2026. Source: ETFIQ.
One strategy, two funds
CSM and FTLS both run a long-short equity strategy. Over the same 52 weeks to Nov 4, 2026, CSM’s weekly returns had a correlation of +0.98 with the S&P 500 and FTLS’s +0.83. In the 26 weeks the index fell, by 1.07% a week on average, CSM averaged −0.97% and FTLS −0.48%. Over the same weeks, CSM finished 10.1 percentage points ahead of cash and FTLS finished 4.1 points ahead of cash.
Client brief:
The two-page PDF for this pair is coming. Save the comparison to follow its changes. Free. It needs an email sign-in, once.
CSM
CSM is a long-short equity fund. ETFIQ measures what every alternatives fund is sold on: whether it moves differently from the stock market. Over the year to Nov 4, 2026, its weekly returns had a correlation of +0.98 with the S&P 500’s and a beta of +0.94, so for each 1% the index moved it moved about 0.94% the same way. The S&P 500 fell in 26 of those 52 weeks, by 1.07% on average. In the same weeks CSM fell 0.97% on average, a down-week capture of 90.7%. Over the same 52 weeks CSM returned +13.7% and a Treasury bill fund +3.7%, so it finished 10.1 percentage points ahead of cash.
FTLS
FTLS is a long-short equity fund. Over the year to Nov 4, 2026, its weekly returns had a correlation of +0.83 with the S&P 500’s and a beta of +0.48, so for each 1% the index moved it moved about 0.48% the same way. In the same weeks FTLS fell 0.48% on average, a down-week capture of 44.7%. Over the same 52 weeks FTLS returned +7.7% and a Treasury bill fund +3.7%, so it finished 4.1 percentage points ahead of cash.
Questions people ask
- Which moved less with the S&P 500, CSM or FTLS?
- Over the 52 weeks to Nov 4, 2026, CSM’s weekly returns had a correlation of +0.98 with the S&P 500 and FTLS’s +0.83, so FTLS moved less with the index.
- Which did better when the S&P 500 fell, CSM or FTLS?
- In the 26 weeks the S&P 500 fell, by 1.07% a week on average, CSM averaged −0.97% and FTLS −0.48%, so FTLS returned more in those weeks.
Links are sources, not endorsements. A comparison is not a recommendation.
How this is computed
Every number is an ETFIQ calculation with distributions reinvested.
Cite this pageCitation, APA and Markdown
ETFIQ, CSM against FTLS, data as of Nov 4, 2026. https://etfiq.com/compare/alternatives/csm-vs-ftls
ETFIQ. (Nov 4, 2026). CSM against FTLS. Retrieved from https://etfiq.com/compare/alternatives/csm-vs-ftls
[CSM against FTLS (ETFIQ, Nov 4, 2026)](https://etfiq.com/compare/alternatives/csm-vs-ftls)
Free to use with attribution for data ETFIQ computes; issuer data stays under its owner's terms.