BGRN vs. TMSF
BGRN (iShares USD Green Bond ETF) and TMSF (T. Rowe Price Multi-Sector Income ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BGRN is a Global Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg MSCI USD Green Bond Select Index, while TMSF is a Multisector Bonds fund actively managed by T. Rowe Price. BGRN is passively managed, while TMSF is actively managed. A 0.70 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BGRN charges 0.20%/yr vs 0.37%/yr for TMSF.
Performance
BGRN vs. TMSF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BGRN achieves a 0.93% return, which is significantly lower than TMSF's 1.92% return.
BGRN
- 1D
- 0.27%
- 1M
- 0.83%
- YTD
- 0.93%
- 6M
- 0.88%
- 1Y
- 4.52%
- 3Y*
- 4.89%
- 5Y*
- 0.66%
- 10Y*
- —
TMSF
- 1D
- 0.15%
- 1M
- 0.70%
- YTD
- 1.92%
- 6M
- 2.16%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
BGRN vs. TMSF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
BGRN iShares USD Green Bond ETF | 0.93% | 0.59% |
TMSF T. Rowe Price Multi-Sector Income ETF | 1.92% | 1.29% |
Correlation
The correlation between BGRN and TMSF is 0.70, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 20, 2025 | 0.70 |
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
BGRN vs. TMSF — Risk / Return Rank
BGRN
TMSF
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
BGRN vs. TMSF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares USD Green Bond ETF (BGRN) and T. Rowe Price Multi-Sector Income ETF (TMSF). 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.
| BGRN | TMSF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.28 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.04 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 6.63 | — | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
BGRN vs. TMSF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BGRN drawdown since its inception was -19.16%, which is greater than TMSF's maximum drawdown of -2.28%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BGRN and TMSF.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BGRN | TMSF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -19.16% | -2.28% | -16.88% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.23% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -4.55% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -18.73% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.34% | -0.20% | -0.14% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -5.75% | -0.37% | -5.38% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.68% | — | — |
Volatility
BGRN vs. TMSF - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BGRN | TMSF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.89% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 2.32% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.97% | 2.92% | +0.05% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 5.47% | 2.92% | +2.55% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 4.99% | 2.92% | +2.07% |
BGRN vs. TMSF - Expense Ratio Comparison
BGRN has a 0.20% expense ratio, which is lower than TMSF's 0.37% expense ratio.
Dividends
BGRN vs. TMSF - Dividend Comparison
BGRN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.27%, more than TMSF's 3.05% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BGRN iShares USD Green Bond ETF | 4.27% | 4.21% | 4.07% | 3.52% | 2.66% | 0.78% | 1.82% | 3.66% | 0.21% |
TMSF T. Rowe Price Multi-Sector Income ETF | 3.05% | 0.75% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
BGRN and TMSF have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, BGRN is cheaper at 0.20% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
BGRN is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.37% for TMSF.
BGRN has the higher dividend yield at 4.27%, compared with 3.05% for TMSF.
BGRN is categorized as Global Bonds, while TMSF is Multisector Bonds. They also come from different issuers: iShares and T. Rowe Price. Their fees differ too: 0.20% for BGRN and 0.37% for TMSF.
Find the right allocation for BGRN and TMSF
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