AINP vs. RMIF

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

AINP (Allspring Income Plus ETF) and RMIF (LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF) are both Multisector Bonds funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, AINP returned 6.72% vs 3.22% for RMIF. A 0.55 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. AINP charges 0.36%/yr vs 1.38%/yr for RMIF.

Performance

AINP vs. RMIF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Allspring Income Plus ETF (AINP) and LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF (RMIF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AINP achieves a 1.33% return, which is significantly higher than RMIF's -0.73% return.

AINP

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.70%
• YTD: 1.33%
• 6M: 1.86%
• 1Y: 6.72%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RMIF

• 1D: 0.08%
• 1M: 0.22%
• YTD: -0.73%
• 6M: -0.26%
• 1Y: 3.22%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

AINP vs. RMIF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
AINP Allspring Income Plus ETF	1.33%	7.53%	-1.24%
RMIF LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF	-0.73%	4.36%	-0.12%

Correlation

The correlation between AINP and RMIF is 0.58, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.58
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 6, 2024	0.55

The correlation between AINP and RMIF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.55 to 0.58 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

AINP vs. RMIF — Risk / Return Rank

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

AINP

AINP Risk / Return Rank: 61
AINP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
AINP Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
AINP Omega Ratio Rank: 67
AINP Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
AINP Martin Ratio Rank: 60

RMIF

RMIF Risk / Return Rank: 31
RMIF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 33
RMIF Sortino Ratio Rank: 33
RMIF Omega Ratio Rank: 34
RMIF Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
RMIF Martin Ratio Rank: 26

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.

AINP vs. RMIF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Allspring Income Plus ETF (AINP) and LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF (RMIF). 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.

	AINP	RMIF	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.07	1.23	+0.84
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.15	1.79	+1.36
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.41	1.23	+0.18
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.64	1.35	+1.29
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	10.86	3.76	+7.11
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

AINP vs. RMIF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AINP Sharpe Ratio is 2.07, which is higher than the RMIF Sharpe Ratio of 1.23. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AINP and RMIF, 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

	AINP	RMIF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.07	1.23	+0.84
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.41	1.92	-0.51

Drawdowns

AINP vs. RMIF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AINP drawdown since its inception was -2.61%, smaller than the maximum RMIF drawdown of -3.01%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AINP and RMIF.

Drawdown Indicators

	AINP	RMIF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-2.61%	-3.01%	+0.40%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.51%	-2.37%	-0.14%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-1.19%	+1.19%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.47%	-0.38%	-0.09%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.61%	0.85%	-0.24%

Volatility

AINP vs. RMIF - Volatility Comparison

Allspring Income Plus ETF (AINP) has a higher volatility of 1.15% compared to LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF (RMIF) at 0.74%. This indicates that AINP's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RMIF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AINP	RMIF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.15%	0.74%	+0.41%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.45%	1.99%	+0.46%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.26%	2.62%	+0.64%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.63%	2.59%	+1.04%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.63%	2.59%	+1.04%

AINP vs. RMIF - Expense Ratio Comparison

AINP has a 0.36% expense ratio, which is lower than RMIF's 1.38% expense ratio.

Dividends

AINP vs. RMIF - Dividend Comparison

AINP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.77%, more than RMIF's 5.29% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
AINP Allspring Income Plus ETF	5.77%	5.03%	0.47%	0.00%
RMIF LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF	5.29%	5.70%	6.61%	3.70%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AINP and RMIF in my portfolio?

AINP and RMIF have a correlation of 0.58, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, AINP or RMIF?

AINP has higher volatility (1.15%) compared to RMIF (0.74%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AINP dropped -2.61% vs RMIF's -3.01%.

Which ETF is better, AINP or RMIF?

On 1-year performance, AINP leads with 6.72% vs 3.22% for RMIF. On fees, AINP is cheaper at 0.36% per year. On volatility, RMIF has been the lower-risk option at 0.74%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AINP or RMIF?

Over the 1-year period, AINP has performed better with a 6.72% return vs 3.22%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AINP or RMIF?

AINP is cheaper with a 0.36% expense ratio, compared with 1.38% for RMIF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, AINP or RMIF?

AINP has the higher dividend yield at 5.77%, compared with 5.29% for RMIF.

What is the main difference between AINP and RMIF?

They also come from different issuers: Allspring and Little Harbor Advisors. Their fees differ too: 0.36% for AINP and 1.38% for RMIF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

AINP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.07 vs 1.23), 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.