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 0.43% return, which is significantly lower than TMSF's 1.71% return.
BGRN
- 1D
- -0.20%
- 1M
- 0.31%
- YTD
- 0.43%
- 6M
- 0.49%
- 1Y
- 5.19%
- 3Y*
- 4.75%
- 5Y*
- 0.54%
- 10Y*
- —
TMSF
- 1D
- -0.20%
- 1M
- 0.53%
- YTD
- 1.71%
- 6M
- 2.23%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
BGRN vs. TMSF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
BGRN iShares USD Green Bond ETF | 0.43% | 0.54% |
TMSF T. Rowe Price Multi-Sector Income ETF | 1.71% | 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 21, 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
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.
| BGRN | TMSF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.32 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.34 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 7.85 | — | — |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| BGRN | TMSF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.76 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.10 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.45 | 1.99 | -1.54 |
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 | -0.83% | -0.25% | -0.58% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -5.79% | -0.38% | -5.41% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.66% | — | — |
Volatility
BGRN vs. TMSF - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BGRN | TMSF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.06% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 2.24% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.97% | 2.94% | +0.03% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 5.46% | 2.94% | +2.52% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 5.00% | 2.94% | +2.06% |
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 4.29%, more than TMSF's 3.06% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BGRN iShares USD Green Bond ETF | 4.29% | 4.21% | 4.07% | 3.52% | 2.66% | 0.78% | 1.82% | 3.66% | 0.21% |
TMSF T. Rowe Price Multi-Sector Income ETF | 3.06% | 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 4.29%, compared with 3.06% 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