PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
ASMF vs. BILS
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

ASMF vs. BILS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Virtus AlphaSimplex Managed Futures ETF (ASMF) and SPDR Bloomberg 3-12 Month T-Bill ETF (BILS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ASMF achieves a 9.38% return, which is significantly higher than BILS's 1.41% return.


ASMF

1D
0.62%
1M
1.58%
YTD
9.38%
6M
11.65%
1Y
16.81%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*

BILS

1D
0.02%
1M
0.29%
YTD
1.41%
6M
1.75%
1Y
3.94%
3Y*
4.66%
5Y*
3.30%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ASMF vs. BILS - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024
ASMF
Virtus AlphaSimplex Managed Futures ETF
9.38%1.16%-3.56%
BILS
SPDR Bloomberg 3-12 Month T-Bill ETF
1.41%4.23%3.27%

Correlation

The correlation between ASMF and BILS is -0.09, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

-0.09

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since May 17, 2024

-0.05

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

ASMF vs. BILS — Risk / Return Rank

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

ASMF
ASMF Risk / Return Rank: 5050
Overall Rank
ASMF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4343
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ASMF Sortino Ratio Rank: 4141
Sortino Ratio Rank
ASMF Omega Ratio Rank: 4444
Omega Ratio Rank
ASMF Calmar Ratio Rank: 6868
Calmar Ratio Rank
ASMF Martin Ratio Rank: 5353
Martin Ratio Rank

BILS
BILS Risk / Return Rank: 100100
Overall Rank
BILS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100100
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BILS Sortino Ratio Rank: 100100
Sortino Ratio Rank
BILS Omega Ratio Rank: 100100
Omega Ratio Rank
BILS Calmar Ratio Rank: 100100
Calmar Ratio Rank
BILS Martin Ratio Rank: 100100
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

ASMF vs. BILS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Virtus AlphaSimplex Managed Futures ETF (ASMF) and SPDR Bloomberg 3-12 Month T-Bill ETF (BILS). 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.


ASMFBILSDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

1.51

16.98

-15.47

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

2.11

102.66

-100.55

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.28

44.83

-43.54

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

3.44

130.83

-127.39

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

9.10

1,465.65

-1,456.55

ASMF vs. BILS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ASMF Sharpe Ratio is 1.51, which is lower than the BILS Sharpe Ratio of 16.98. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ASMF and BILS, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


ASMFBILSDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.51

16.98

-15.47

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

10.80

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.30

9.80

-9.51

Drawdowns

ASMF vs. BILS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ASMF drawdown since its inception was -15.31%, which is greater than BILS's maximum drawdown of -0.41%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ASMF and BILS.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


ASMFBILSDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-15.31%

-0.41%

-14.90%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-5.02%

-0.03%

-4.99%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-0.04%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-0.38%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.35%

0.00%

-1.35%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-7.62%

-0.04%

-7.58%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.90%

0.00%

+1.90%

Volatility

ASMF vs. BILS - Volatility Comparison

Virtus AlphaSimplex Managed Futures ETF (ASMF) has a higher volatility of 2.60% compared to SPDR Bloomberg 3-12 Month T-Bill ETF (BILS) at 0.06%. This indicates that ASMF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BILS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


ASMFBILSDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.60%

0.06%

+2.54%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.30%

0.14%

+9.16%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

11.17%

0.23%

+10.94%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

10.98%

0.31%

+10.67%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

10.98%

0.30%

+10.68%

ASMF vs. BILS - Expense Ratio Comparison

ASMF has a 0.80% expense ratio, which is higher than BILS's 0.14% expense ratio.


Dividends

ASMF vs. BILS - Dividend Comparison

ASMF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.20%, less than BILS's 3.81% yield.


PositionTTM2025202420232022
ASMF
Virtus AlphaSimplex Managed Futures ETF
0.20%0.22%1.66%0.00%0.00%
BILS
SPDR Bloomberg 3-12 Month T-Bill ETF
3.81%4.08%5.01%4.98%1.61%

Frequently Asked Questions


ASMF and BILS have a correlation of -0.09, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

ASMF has higher volatility (2.60%) compared to BILS (0.06%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ASMF dropped -15.31% vs BILS's -0.41%.

On 1-year performance, ASMF leads with 16.81% vs 3.94% for BILS. On fees, BILS is cheaper at 0.14% per year. On volatility, BILS has been the lower-risk option at 0.06%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, ASMF has performed better with a 16.81% return vs 3.94%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

BILS is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for ASMF.

BILS has the higher dividend yield at 3.81%, compared with 0.20% for ASMF.

ASMF is categorized as Systematic Trend, while BILS is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: Virtus and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.80% for ASMF and 0.14% for BILS.

BILS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (16.98 vs 1.51), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for ASMF and BILS

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer