BNDS vs. YCS

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

BNDS (Infrastructure Capital Bond Income ETF) and YCS (ProShares UltraShort Yen) are both exchange-traded funds - BNDS is a Intermediate Core-Plus Bond fund actively managed by InfraCap, while YCS is a Leveraged Currency fund tracking the USD/JPY Exchange Rate (-200%). BNDS is actively managed, while YCS is passively managed. Over the past year, BNDS returned 13.48% vs 35.19% for YCS. At a correlation of -0.12, they often move in opposite directions. BNDS charges 0.81%/yr vs 1.00%/yr for YCS.

Performance

BNDS vs. YCS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Infrastructure Capital Bond Income ETF (BNDS) and ProShares UltraShort Yen (YCS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BNDS achieves a 4.44% return, which is significantly lower than YCS's 6.99% return.

BNDS

• 1D: 0.10%
• 1M: 0.18%
• YTD: 4.44%
• 6M: 4.74%
• 1Y: 13.48%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

YCS

• 1D: 0.03%
• 1M: 4.27%
• YTD: 6.99%
• 6M: 8.81%
• 1Y: 35.19%
• 3Y*: 19.77%
• 5Y*: 23.16%
• 10Y*: 12.32%

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

BNDS vs. YCS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BNDS Infrastructure Capital Bond Income ETF	4.44%	8.30%
YCS ProShares UltraShort Yen	6.99%	7.56%

Correlation

The correlation between BNDS and YCS is -0.28, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.28
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 16, 2025	-0.12

The correlation between BNDS and YCS shifts across timeframes, from -0.28 (1 year) to -0.12 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

BNDS vs. YCS — Risk / Return Rank

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

BNDS

BNDS Risk / Return Rank: 89
BNDS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
BNDS Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
BNDS Omega Ratio Rank: 96
BNDS Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
BNDS Martin Ratio Rank: 85

YCS

YCS Risk / Return Rank: 63
YCS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
YCS Sortino Ratio Rank: 53
YCS Omega Ratio Rank: 60
YCS Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
YCS Martin Ratio Rank: 66

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.

BNDS vs. YCS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Infrastructure Capital Bond Income ETF (BNDS) and ProShares UltraShort Yen (YCS). 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.

	BNDS	YCS	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	3.82	2.05	+1.77
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	5.66	2.59	+3.07
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.82	1.37	+0.45
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.88	3.95	-0.07
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	17.93	12.35	+5.58
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BNDS vs. YCS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BNDS Sharpe Ratio is 3.82, which is higher than the YCS Sharpe Ratio of 2.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BNDS and YCS, 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

	BNDS	YCS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.82	2.05	+1.77
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	1.10	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.65	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.78	0.33	+1.45

Drawdowns

BNDS vs. YCS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BNDS drawdown since its inception was -6.96%, smaller than the maximum YCS drawdown of -49.56%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BNDS and YCS.

Drawdown Indicators

	BNDS	YCS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-6.96%	-49.56%	+42.60%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.45%	-8.30%	+4.85%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-23.05%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-27.32%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-27.32%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.15%	-0.04%	-0.11%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.82%	-19.94%	+19.12%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.75%	2.66%	-1.91%

Volatility

BNDS vs. YCS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Infrastructure Capital Bond Income ETF (BNDS) is 0.86%, while ProShares UltraShort Yen (YCS) has a volatility of 2.75%. This indicates that BNDS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than YCS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BNDS	YCS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.86%	2.75%	-1.89%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.74%	12.36%	-9.62%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.55%	17.38%	-13.83%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.29%	21.11%	-15.82%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.29%	19.02%	-13.73%

BNDS vs. YCS - Expense Ratio Comparison

BNDS has a 0.81% expense ratio, which is lower than YCS's 1.00% expense ratio.

Dividends

BNDS vs. YCS - Dividend Comparison

BNDS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 7.96%, while YCS has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025
BNDS Infrastructure Capital Bond Income ETF	7.96%	7.98%
YCS ProShares UltraShort Yen	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BNDS and YCS in my portfolio?

BNDS and YCS have a correlation of -0.28, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BNDS or YCS?

YCS has higher volatility (2.75%) compared to BNDS (0.86%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BNDS dropped -6.96% vs YCS's -49.56%.

Which ETF is better, BNDS or YCS?

On 1-year performance, YCS leads with 35.19% vs 13.48% for BNDS. On fees, BNDS is cheaper at 0.81% per year. On volatility, BNDS has been the lower-risk option at 0.86%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BNDS or YCS?

Over the 1-year period, YCS has performed better with a 35.19% return vs 13.48%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BNDS or YCS?

BNDS is cheaper with a 0.81% expense ratio, compared with 1.00% for YCS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BNDS or YCS?

BNDS has the higher dividend yield at 7.96%, compared with 0.00% for YCS.

What is the main difference between BNDS and YCS?

BNDS is categorized as Intermediate Core-Plus Bond, while YCS is Leveraged Currency. They also come from different issuers: InfraCap and ProShares. Their fees differ too: 0.81% for BNDS and 1.00% for YCS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BNDS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.82 vs 2.05), 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.