BINC vs. MBSF
BINC (iShares Flexible Income Active ETF) and MBSF (Regan Floating Rate MBS ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - BINC is a Multisector Bonds fund actively managed by iShares, while MBSF is a Bank Loan fund actively managed by Regan. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, BINC returned 5.80% vs 5.34% for MBSF. At a 0.15 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BINC charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.49%/yr for MBSF.
Performance
BINC vs. MBSF - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BINC achieves a 0.90% return, which is significantly lower than MBSF's 1.48% return.
BINC
- 1D
- -0.12%
- 1M
- 0.54%
- YTD
- 0.90%
- 6M
- 1.22%
- 1Y
- 5.80%
- 3Y*
- 7.02%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
MBSF
- 1D
- 0.12%
- 1M
- -0.03%
- YTD
- 1.48%
- 6M
- 2.16%
- 1Y
- 5.34%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
BINC vs. MBSF - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
BINC iShares Flexible Income Active ETF | 0.90% | 7.57% | 5.70% |
MBSF Regan Floating Rate MBS ETF | 1.48% | 5.85% | 5.71% |
Correlation
The correlation between BINC and MBSF is 0.15, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.15 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 29, 2024 | 0.15 |
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
BINC vs. MBSF — Risk / Return Rank
BINC
MBSF
BINC vs. MBSF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Flexible Income Active ETF (BINC) and Regan Floating Rate MBS ETF (MBSF). 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.
| BINC | MBSF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.77 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.94 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.51 | 1.34 | +0.18 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.17 | 6.77 | -4.61 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 8.53 | 19.20 | -10.67 |
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
| BINC | MBSF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.56 | 1.79 | +0.77 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 2.36 | 1.74 | +0.62 |
Drawdowns
BINC vs. MBSF - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BINC drawdown since its inception was -2.69%, which is greater than MBSF's maximum drawdown of -0.97%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BINC and MBSF.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BINC | MBSF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -2.69% | -0.97% | -1.72% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.69% | -0.79% | -1.90% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -2.69% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.49% | -0.10% | -0.39% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.36% | -0.23% | -0.13% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.68% | 0.28% | +0.40% |
Volatility
BINC vs. MBSF - Volatility Comparison
iShares Flexible Income Active ETF (BINC) has a higher volatility of 0.75% compared to Regan Floating Rate MBS ETF (MBSF) at 0.64%. This indicates that BINC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MBSF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BINC | MBSF | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.75% | 0.64% | +0.11% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 1.84% | 2.16% | -0.32% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.28% | 3.01% | -0.73% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 3.00% | 3.34% | -0.34% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 3.00% | 3.34% | -0.34% |
BINC vs. MBSF - Expense Ratio Comparison
BINC has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is lower than MBSF's 0.49% expense ratio.
Dividends
BINC vs. MBSF - Dividend Comparison
BINC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.86%, more than MBSF's 4.49% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
BINC iShares Flexible Income Active ETF | 5.86% | 5.86% | 6.14% | 3.13% |
MBSF Regan Floating Rate MBS ETF | 4.49% | 4.71% | 4.14% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
BINC and MBSF have a correlation of 0.15, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
BINC has higher volatility (0.75%) compared to MBSF (0.64%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BINC dropped -2.69% vs MBSF's -0.97%.
On 1-year performance, BINC leads with 5.80% vs 5.34% for MBSF. On fees, BINC is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, MBSF has been the lower-risk option at 0.64%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, BINC has performed better with a 5.80% return vs 5.34%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
BINC is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for MBSF.
BINC has the higher dividend yield at 5.86%, compared with 4.49% for MBSF.
BINC is categorized as Multisector Bonds, while MBSF is Bank Loan. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Regan. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for BINC and 0.49% for MBSF.
BINC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.56 vs 1.79), 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 BINC and MBSF
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