PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
ASMH vs. RBIL
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

ASMH vs. RBIL - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ASMH achieves a 63.99% return, which is significantly higher than RBIL's 2.70% return.


ASMH

1D
1.53%
1M
25.24%
YTD
63.99%
6M
53.18%
1Y
130.11%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*

RBIL

1D
0.06%
1M
0.38%
YTD
2.70%
6M
2.79%
1Y
4.57%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ASMH vs. RBIL - Yearly Performance Comparison


Correlation

The correlation between ASMH and RBIL is -0.27, 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

-0.27

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 24, 2025

-0.26

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

ASMH vs. RBIL — Risk / Return Rank

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

ASMH
ASMH Risk / Return Rank: 8888
Overall Rank
ASMH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9292
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ASMH Sortino Ratio Rank: 8585
Sortino Ratio Rank
ASMH Omega Ratio Rank: 7979
Omega Ratio Rank
ASMH Calmar Ratio Rank: 9595
Calmar Ratio Rank
ASMH Martin Ratio Rank: 9090
Martin Ratio Rank

RBIL
RBIL Risk / Return Rank: 9898
Overall Rank
RBIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9797
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RBIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 9898
Sortino Ratio Rank
RBIL Omega Ratio Rank: 9898
Omega Ratio Rank
RBIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 9898
Calmar Ratio Rank
RBIL Martin Ratio Rank: 9898
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.

ASMH vs. RBIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ASML Holding NV ADR Hedged ETF (ASMH) 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.


ASMHRBILDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.65

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-4.11

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.47

2.39

-0.92

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

8.24

17.00

-8.76

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

21.26

70.66

-49.40

ASMH vs. RBIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ASMH Sharpe Ratio is 3.36, which is lower than the RBIL Sharpe Ratio of 5.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ASMH 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.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


ASMHRBILDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.36

5.01

-1.65

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

3.59

4.28

-0.68

Drawdowns

ASMH vs. RBIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ASMH drawdown since its inception was -15.89%, which is greater than RBIL's maximum drawdown of -0.50%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ASMH and RBIL.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


ASMHRBILDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-15.89%

-0.50%

-15.39%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-15.89%

-0.27%

-15.62%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.33%

-0.06%

-4.27%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

6.14%

0.07%

+6.07%

Volatility

ASMH vs. RBIL - Volatility Comparison

ASML Holding NV ADR Hedged ETF (ASMH) has a higher volatility of 13.84% compared to F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL) at 0.30%. This indicates that ASMH'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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


ASMHRBILDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

13.84%

0.30%

+13.54%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

30.43%

0.79%

+29.64%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

38.94%

0.92%

+38.02%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

38.32%

1.05%

+37.27%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

38.32%

1.05%

+37.27%

ASMH vs. RBIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

ASMH has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is higher than RBIL's 0.17% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.


Dividends

ASMH vs. RBIL - Dividend Comparison

ASMH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.99%, less than RBIL's 4.60% yield.


Frequently Asked Questions


ASMH and RBIL have a correlation of -0.27, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

ASMH has higher volatility (13.84%) compared to RBIL (0.30%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ASMH dropped -15.89% vs RBIL's -0.50%.

On 1-year performance, ASMH leads with 130.11% vs 4.57% for RBIL. On fees, RBIL is cheaper at 0.17% per year. On volatility, RBIL has been the lower-risk option at 0.30%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, ASMH has performed better with a 130.11% return vs 4.57%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

RBIL is cheaper with a 0.17% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for ASMH.

RBIL has the higher dividend yield at 4.60%, compared with 0.99% for ASMH.

ASMH is categorized as Technology Equities, while RBIL is Inflation-Protected Bonds. ASMH tracks ASML Holding NV Sponsored ADR, while RBIL tracks Bloomberg US Ultrashort TIPS 1-13 Months Index. They also come from different issuers: Precidian Funds and F/m. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for ASMH and 0.17% for RBIL.

RBIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (5.01 vs 3.36), 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 ASMH and RBIL

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