BMA vs. FLTR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BMA (Banco Macro S.A.) is a stock, while FLTR (VanEck Vectors Investment Grade Floating Rate ETF) is Corporate Bonds fund tracking the MVIS US Investment Grade Floating Rate Index. Over the past 10 years, BMA returned 7.34%/yr vs 3.51%/yr for FLTR. At a 0.06 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

BMA vs. FLTR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Banco Macro S.A. (BMA) and VanEck Vectors Investment Grade Floating Rate ETF (FLTR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BMA achieves a -1.28% return, which is significantly lower than FLTR's 1.91% return. Over the past 10 years, BMA has outperformed FLTR with an annualized return of 7.34%, while FLTR has yielded a comparatively lower 3.51% annualized return.

BMA

• 1D: -3.20%
• 1M: 25.91%
• YTD: -1.28%
• 6M: 1.44%
• 1Y: 12.41%
• 3Y*: 83.19%
• 5Y*: 47.44%
• 10Y*: 7.34%

FLTR

• 1D: -0.04%
• 1M: 0.46%
• YTD: 1.91%
• 6M: 2.40%
• 1Y: 5.30%
• 3Y*: 6.10%
• 5Y*: 4.49%
• 10Y*: 3.51%

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

BMA vs. FLTR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
BMA Banco Macro S.A.	-1.28%	-3.55%	277.79%	91.62%	27.04%	-9.96%	-57.05%	-14.00%	-60.72%	81.54%
FLTR VanEck Vectors Investment Grade Floating Rate ETF	1.91%	5.22%	7.38%	7.41%	0.74%	0.55%	1.44%	5.70%	0.30%	2.80%

Correlation

The correlation between BMA and FLTR is 0.06, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.06
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.06
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.11
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.10
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 27, 2011	0.06

Return for Risk

BMA vs. FLTR — Risk / Return Rank

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

BMA

BMA Risk / Return Rank: 48
BMA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 47
BMA Sortino Ratio Rank: 51
BMA Omega Ratio Rank: 49
BMA Calmar Ratio Rank: 46
BMA Martin Ratio Rank: 46

FLTR

FLTR Risk / Return Rank: 99
FLTR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
FLTR Sortino Ratio Rank: 99
FLTR Omega Ratio Rank: 99
FLTR Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
FLTR Martin Ratio Rank: 99

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.

BMA vs. FLTR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Banco Macro S.A. (BMA) and VanEck Vectors Investment Grade Floating Rate ETF (FLTR). 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.

	BMA	FLTR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.17	6.77	-6.60
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.89	12.78	-11.89
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.11	3.15	-2.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.25	16.96	-16.71
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.56	101.23	-100.66
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BMA vs. FLTR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BMA Sharpe Ratio is 0.17, which is lower than the FLTR Sharpe Ratio of 6.77. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BMA and FLTR, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	BMA	FLTR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.17	6.77	-6.60
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.80	2.11	-1.31
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.12	0.70	-0.59
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.19	0.53	-0.33

Drawdowns

BMA vs. FLTR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BMA drawdown since its inception was -91.66%, which is greater than FLTR's maximum drawdown of -17.84%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BMA and FLTR.

Drawdown Indicators

	BMA	FLTR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-91.66%	-17.84%	-73.82%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-48.89%	-0.31%	-48.58%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-65.40%	-1.93%	-63.47%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-65.40%	-3.06%	-62.34%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-91.66%	-17.84%	-73.82%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-20.47%	-0.04%	-20.43%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-44.86%	-0.67%	-44.19%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	23.24%	0.05%	+23.19%

Volatility

BMA vs. FLTR - Volatility Comparison

Banco Macro S.A. (BMA) has a higher volatility of 18.86% compared to VanEck Vectors Investment Grade Floating Rate ETF (FLTR) at 0.25%. This indicates that BMA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLTR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BMA	FLTR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	18.86%	0.25%	+18.61%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	38.51%	0.62%	+37.89%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	73.94%	0.79%	+73.15%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	59.43%	2.13%	+57.30%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	62.25%	5.00%	+57.25%

Dividends

BMA vs. FLTR - Dividend Comparison

BMA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.56%, more than FLTR's 4.73% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BMA Banco Macro S.A.	5.56%	2.38%	6.10%	7.75%	7.28%	0.00%	0.00%	6.20%	5.05%	0.65%	1.53%	0.00%
FLTR VanEck Vectors Investment Grade Floating Rate ETF	4.73%	4.97%	5.93%	6.07%	2.29%	0.63%	1.49%	3.05%	2.67%	1.69%	1.16%	0.71%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BMA and FLTR in my portfolio?

BMA and FLTR have a correlation of 0.06, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BMA or FLTR?

BMA has higher volatility (18.86%) compared to FLTR (0.25%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BMA dropped -91.66% vs FLTR's -17.84%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLTR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (6.77 vs 0.17), 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.