ATCSX vs. FLBDX

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

ATCSX (Anchor Risk Managed Credit Strategies Fund) and FLBDX (Meeder Tactical Income Fund) are both Nontraditional Bonds funds. Over the past 10 years, ATCSX returned 1.56%/yr vs 3.20%/yr for FLBDX. At a 0.23 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ATCSX charges 4.58%/yr vs 1.11%/yr for FLBDX.

Performance

ATCSX vs. FLBDX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Anchor Risk Managed Credit Strategies Fund (ATCSX) and Meeder Tactical Income Fund (FLBDX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ATCSX achieves a 3.21% return, which is significantly higher than FLBDX's 2.28% return. Over the past 10 years, ATCSX has underperformed FLBDX with an annualized return of 1.56%, while FLBDX has yielded a comparatively higher 3.20% annualized return.

ATCSX

• 1D: 1.15%
• 1M: 0.88%
• YTD: 3.21%
• 6M: 2.96%
• 1Y: 10.43%
• 3Y*: 3.97%
• 5Y*: 0.37%
• 10Y*: 1.56%

FLBDX

• 1D: 0.21%
• 1M: 0.75%
• YTD: 2.28%
• 6M: 2.39%
• 1Y: 7.49%
• 3Y*: 7.19%
• 5Y*: 3.24%
• 10Y*: 3.20%

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

ATCSX vs. FLBDX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
ATCSX Anchor Risk Managed Credit Strategies Fund	3.21%	3.71%	4.25%	-2.23%	-6.60%	-0.21%	11.02%	5.14%	-4.18%	2.14%
FLBDX Meeder Tactical Income Fund	2.28%	7.28%	6.64%	7.10%	-5.71%	-2.01%	7.46%	7.24%	-1.67%	3.72%

Correlation

The correlation between ATCSX and FLBDX is 0.57, 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	0.57
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.33
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.30
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.23
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 4, 2016	0.23

Over the past year, ATCSX and FLBDX have become more correlated (0.57) than their long-term average of 0.23, meaning their price movements have been converging.

Return for Risk

ATCSX vs. FLBDX — Risk / Return Rank

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

ATCSX

ATCSX Risk / Return Rank: 42
ATCSX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 32
ATCSX Sortino Ratio Rank: 27
ATCSX Omega Ratio Rank: 36
ATCSX Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
ATCSX Martin Ratio Rank: 45

FLBDX

FLBDX Risk / Return Rank: 93
FLBDX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
FLBDX Sortino Ratio Rank: 95
FLBDX Omega Ratio Rank: 91
FLBDX Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
FLBDX Martin Ratio Rank: 93

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.

ATCSX vs. FLBDX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Anchor Risk Managed Credit Strategies Fund (ATCSX) and Meeder Tactical Income Fund (FLBDX). 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.

	ATCSX	FLBDX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.52	3.07	-1.55
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.04	4.71	-2.67
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.64	-0.34
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.11	4.63	-1.52
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.02	18.46	-9.44

ATCSX vs. FLBDX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ATCSX Sharpe Ratio is 1.52, which is lower than the FLBDX Sharpe Ratio of 3.07. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ATCSX and FLBDX, 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

ATCSX vs. FLBDX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ATCSX drawdown since its inception was -53.70%, which is greater than FLBDX's maximum drawdown of -8.74%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ATCSX and FLBDX.

Drawdown Indicators

	ATCSX	FLBDX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-53.70%	-8.74%	-44.96%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.37%	-1.65%	-1.72%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-53.70%	-2.51%	-51.19%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-53.70%	-8.16%	-45.54%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-53.70%	-8.74%	-44.96%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-46.83%	0.00%	-46.83%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.28%	-1.93%	-8.35%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.16%	0.41%	+0.75%

Volatility

ATCSX vs. FLBDX - Volatility Comparison

Anchor Risk Managed Credit Strategies Fund (ATCSX) has a higher volatility of 3.63% compared to Meeder Tactical Income Fund (FLBDX) at 0.88%. This indicates that ATCSX's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLBDX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ATCSX	FLBDX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.63%	0.88%	+2.75%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.46%	1.92%	+3.54%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	6.88%	2.48%	+4.40%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	50.62%	2.69%	+47.93%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	35.94%	2.94%	+33.00%

ATCSX vs. FLBDX - Expense Ratio Comparison

ATCSX has a 4.58% expense ratio, which is higher than FLBDX's 1.11% expense ratio.

Dividends

ATCSX vs. FLBDX - Dividend Comparison

ATCSX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 9.50%, more than FLBDX's 4.57% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ATCSX Anchor Risk Managed Credit Strategies Fund	9.50%	9.26%	12.69%	3.16%	0.00%	2.48%	1.46%	3.04%	0.27%	2.76%	2.91%	0.00%
FLBDX Meeder Tactical Income Fund	4.57%	4.67%	4.35%	3.57%	1.68%	1.56%	1.81%	2.32%	2.03%	2.70%	2.90%	2.78%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ATCSX and FLBDX in my portfolio?

ATCSX and FLBDX have a correlation of 0.57, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ATCSX or FLBDX?

ATCSX has higher volatility (3.63%) compared to FLBDX (0.88%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ATCSX dropped -53.70% vs FLBDX's -8.74%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLBDX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.07 vs 1.52), 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.