BGT vs. EFT
BGT (BlackRock Floating Rate Income Trust) is Bank Loan fund managed by BlackRock, while EFT (Eaton Vance Floating-Rate Income Trust) is a stock. Over the past 10 years, BGT returned 6.51%/yr vs 5.23%/yr for EFT. Their 0.48 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship.
Performance
BGT vs. EFT - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BGT achieves a 3.20% return, which is significantly higher than EFT's -2.04% return. Over the past 10 years, BGT has outperformed EFT with an annualized return of 6.51%, while EFT has yielded a comparatively lower 5.23% annualized return.
BGT
- 1D
- 0.74%
- 1M
- 2.93%
- 6M
- 1.06%
- YTD
- 3.20%
- 1Y
- -3.09%
- 3Y*
- 8.77%
- 5Y*
- 6.83%
- 10Y*
- 6.51%
- ALL TIME*
- 5.40%
EFT
- 1D
- -0.28%
- 1M
- -0.79%
- 6M
- -2.90%
- YTD
- -2.04%
- 1Y
- -5.78%
- 3Y*
- 5.96%
- 5Y*
- 3.14%
- 10Y*
- 5.23%
- ALL TIME*
- 4.57%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $1.59M | $1.30M | $1.18M | |
| $699.02K | $595.84K | $824.52K |
BGT vs. EFT - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BGT BlackRock Floating Rate Income Trust | 3.20% | -0.84% | 16.12% | 26.29% | -16.57% | 25.89% | -0.81% | 18.97% | -11.95% | 3.91% |
EFT Eaton Vance Floating-Rate Income Trust | -2.04% | -3.77% | 13.17% | 27.14% | -19.69% | 21.00% | 2.41% | 16.85% | -6.14% | 1.63% |
Correlation
The correlation between BGT and EFT is 0.47, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most. | 0.47 |
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history. | 0.42 |
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period. | 0.49 |
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions. | 0.49 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 30, 2004 | 0.48 |
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
BGT vs. EFT — Risk / Return Rank
BGT
EFT
BGT vs. EFT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BlackRock Floating Rate Income Trust (BGT) and Eaton Vance Floating-Rate Income Trust (EFT). 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.
| BGT | EFT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.48 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.74 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.96 | 0.87 | +0.09 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.25 | -0.62 | +0.37 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.52 | -1.39 | +0.87 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
BGT vs. EFT - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BGT drawdown since its inception was -58.06%, roughly equal to the maximum EFT drawdown of -60.58%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BGT and EFT.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BGT | EFT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -58.06% | -60.58% | +2.52% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -11.06% | -10.54% | -0.52% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -15.91% | -17.49% | +1.58% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -23.19% | -24.98% | +1.79% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -41.90% | -45.51% | +3.61% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -3.09% | -10.75% | +7.66% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -8.10% | -8.82% | +0.72% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 5.41% | 5.41% | 0.00% |
Volatility
BGT vs. EFT - Volatility Comparison
BlackRock Floating Rate Income Trust (BGT) has a higher volatility of 3.08% compared to Eaton Vance Floating-Rate Income Trust (EFT) at 1.36%. This indicates that BGT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EFT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BGT | EFT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.08% | 1.36% | +1.72% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 7.43% | 7.14% | +0.29% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 9.95% | 8.66% | +1.29% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 13.60% | 12.71% | +0.89% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 15.35% | 15.72% | -0.37% |
Dividends
BGT vs. EFT - Dividend Comparison
BGT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 13.33%, more than EFT's 8.91% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BGT BlackRock Floating Rate Income Trust | 13.33% | 12.74% | 11.22% | 10.36% | 6.87% | 5.55% | 7.58% | 6.33% | 6.64% | 5.03% | 5.03% | 6.04% |
EFT Eaton Vance Floating-Rate Income Trust | 8.91% | 9.55% | 10.52% | 11.09% | 9.81% | 5.24% | 5.88% | 7.41% | 6.77% | 5.73% | 5.54% | 6.57% |
Frequently Asked Questions
BGT and EFT have a correlation of 0.47, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
BGT has higher volatility (3.08%) compared to EFT (1.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BGT dropped -58.06% vs EFT's -60.58%.
BGT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (-0.28 vs -0.76), 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.
Find the right allocation for BGT and EFT
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