ABFL vs. RBIL

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

ABFL (Abacus FCF Leaders ETF) and RBIL (F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ABFL is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Abacus, while RBIL is a Inflation-Protected Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg US Ultrashort TIPS 1-13 Months Index. ABFL is actively managed, while RBIL is passively managed. Over the past year, ABFL returned 20.27% vs 4.07% for RBIL. At a correlation of -0.17, they often move in opposite directions. ABFL charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.17%/yr for RBIL.

Performance

ABFL vs. RBIL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Abacus FCF Leaders ETF (ABFL) 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, ABFL achieves a 16.11% return, which is significantly higher than RBIL's 2.32% return.

ABFL

• 1D: -2.37%
• 1M: 1.40%
• YTD: 16.11%
• 6M: 13.99%
• 1Y: 20.27%
• 3Y*: 18.20%
• 5Y*: 12.28%
• 10Y*: —

RBIL

• 1D: 0.01%
• 1M: -0.19%
• YTD: 2.32%
• 6M: 2.37%
• 1Y: 4.07%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

ABFL vs. RBIL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
ABFL Abacus FCF Leaders ETF	16.11%	4.33%
RBIL F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF	2.32%	2.85%

Correlation

The correlation between ABFL and RBIL 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 Feb 25, 2025	-0.17

Return for Risk

ABFL vs. RBIL — Risk / Return Rank

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

ABFL

ABFL Risk / Return Rank: 46
ABFL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
ABFL Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
ABFL Omega Ratio Rank: 36
ABFL Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
ABFL Martin Ratio Rank: 56

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.

ABFL vs. RBIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Abacus FCF Leaders ETF (ABFL) 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.

	ABFL	RBIL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.25	4.35	-3.10
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.77	6.69	-4.92
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	2.13	-0.91
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.84	7.82	-4.98
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.06	42.95	-33.89

ABFL vs. RBIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ABFL Sharpe Ratio is 1.25, which is lower than the RBIL Sharpe Ratio of 4.35. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ABFL 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

ABFL vs. RBIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ABFL drawdown since its inception was -34.95%, which is greater than RBIL's maximum drawdown of -0.52%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ABFL and RBIL.

Drawdown Indicators

	ABFL	RBIL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-34.95%	-0.52%	-34.43%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.17%	-0.52%	-6.65%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.92%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.88%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.37%	-0.50%	-1.87%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.97%	-0.07%	-4.90%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.24%	0.10%	+2.14%

Volatility

ABFL vs. RBIL - Volatility Comparison

Abacus FCF Leaders ETF (ABFL) has a higher volatility of 6.44% compared to F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL) at 0.36%. This indicates that ABFL'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

	ABFL	RBIL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.44%	0.36%	+6.08%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.89%	0.85%	+12.04%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.27%	0.95%	+15.32%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.29%	1.07%	+16.22%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.76%	1.07%	+17.69%

ABFL vs. RBIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

ABFL has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is higher than RBIL's 0.17% expense ratio.

Dividends

ABFL vs. RBIL - Dividend Comparison

ABFL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.54%, less than RBIL's 4.38% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
ABFL Abacus FCF Leaders ETF	0.54%	0.62%	0.70%	0.94%	1.36%	9.63%	0.41%	0.72%	0.62%	0.40%
RBIL F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF	4.38%	3.65%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ABFL and RBIL in my portfolio?

ABFL and RBIL 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, ABFL or RBIL?

ABFL has higher volatility (6.44%) compared to RBIL (0.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ABFL dropped -34.95% vs RBIL's -0.52%.

Which ETF is better, ABFL or RBIL?

On 1-year performance, ABFL leads with 20.27% vs 4.07% 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, ABFL or RBIL?

Over the 1-year period, ABFL has performed better with a 20.27% return vs 4.07%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ABFL or RBIL?

RBIL is cheaper with a 0.17% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for ABFL.

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

RBIL has the higher dividend yield at 4.38%, compared with 0.54% for ABFL.

What is the main difference between ABFL and RBIL?

ABFL is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while RBIL is Inflation-Protected Bonds. They also come from different issuers: Abacus and F/m. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for ABFL and 0.17% for RBIL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RBIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.35 vs 1.25), 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.