AAPW vs. RBIL

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

AAPW (AAPL WeeklyPay™ ETF) and RBIL (F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - AAPW is a Derivative Income fund actively managed by Roundhill, while RBIL is a Inflation-Protected Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg US Ultrashort TIPS 1-13 Months Index. AAPW is actively managed, while RBIL is passively managed. Over the past year, AAPW returned 51.59% vs 4.11% for RBIL. At a correlation of -0.13, they often move in opposite directions. AAPW charges 0.99%/yr vs 0.17%/yr for RBIL.

Performance

AAPW vs. RBIL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AAPL WeeklyPay™ ETF (AAPW) and F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AAPW achieves a 7.48% return, which is significantly higher than RBIL's 2.26% return.

AAPW

• 1D: -0.77%
• 1M: -6.30%
• YTD: 7.48%
• 6M: 6.90%
• 1Y: 51.59%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RBIL

• 1D: -0.06%
• 1M: -0.25%
• YTD: 2.26%
• 6M: 2.29%
• 1Y: 4.11%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

AAPW vs. RBIL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
AAPW AAPL WeeklyPay™ ETF	7.48%	7.39%
RBIL F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF	2.26%	2.85%

Correlation

The correlation between AAPW and RBIL is -0.18, 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	-0.18
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 25, 2025	-0.13

Return for Risk

AAPW vs. RBIL — Risk / Return Rank

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

AAPW

AAPW Risk / Return Rank: 61
AAPW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
AAPW Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
AAPW Omega Ratio Rank: 62
AAPW Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
AAPW Martin Ratio Rank: 49

RBIL

RBIL Risk / Return Rank: 97
RBIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
RBIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
RBIL Omega Ratio Rank: 98
RBIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
RBIL Martin Ratio Rank: 97

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.

AAPW vs. RBIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AAPL WeeklyPay™ ETF (AAPW) and F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL). 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.

	AAPW	RBIL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.87	4.40	-2.53
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.64	6.79	-4.15
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	2.15	-0.81
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.99	7.33	-4.34
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.32	40.56	-33.24

AAPW vs. RBIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AAPW Sharpe Ratio is 1.87, which is lower than the RBIL Sharpe Ratio of 4.40. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AAPW and RBIL, 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

AAPW vs. RBIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AAPW drawdown since its inception was -36.28%, which is greater than RBIL's maximum drawdown of -0.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AAPW and RBIL.

Drawdown Indicators

	AAPW	RBIL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-36.28%	-0.56%	-35.72%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.36%	-0.56%	-16.80%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-8.43%	-0.56%	-7.87%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.96%	-0.07%	-10.89%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.07%	0.10%	+6.97%

Volatility

AAPW vs. RBIL - Volatility Comparison

AAPL WeeklyPay™ ETF (AAPW) has a higher volatility of 7.92% compared to F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL) at 0.36%. This indicates that AAPW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RBIL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AAPW	RBIL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.92%	0.36%	+7.56%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	20.25%	0.85%	+19.40%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	27.75%	0.94%	+26.81%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	34.38%	1.07%	+33.31%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	34.38%	1.07%	+33.31%

AAPW vs. RBIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

AAPW has a 0.99% expense ratio, which is higher than RBIL's 0.17% expense ratio.

Dividends

AAPW vs. RBIL - Dividend Comparison

AAPW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 33.62%, more than RBIL's 4.39% yield.

Position	TTM	2025
AAPW AAPL WeeklyPay™ ETF	33.62%	28.83%
RBIL F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF	4.39%	3.65%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AAPW and RBIL in my portfolio?

AAPW and RBIL have a correlation of -0.18, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, AAPW or RBIL?

AAPW has higher volatility (7.92%) compared to RBIL (0.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AAPW dropped -36.28% vs RBIL's -0.56%.

Which ETF is better, AAPW or RBIL?

On 1-year performance, AAPW leads with 51.59% vs 4.11% for RBIL. On fees, RBIL is cheaper at 0.17% per year. On volatility, RBIL has been the lower-risk option at 0.36%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AAPW or RBIL?

Over the 1-year period, AAPW has performed better with a 51.59% return vs 4.11%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AAPW or RBIL?

RBIL is cheaper with a 0.17% expense ratio, compared with 0.99% for AAPW.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, AAPW or RBIL?

AAPW has the higher dividend yield at 33.62%, compared with 4.39% for RBIL.

What is the main difference between AAPW and RBIL?

AAPW is categorized as Derivative Income, while RBIL is Inflation-Protected Bonds. They also come from different issuers: Roundhill and F/m. Their fees differ too: 0.99% for AAPW and 0.17% for RBIL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RBIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.40 vs 1.87), 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.