BSJT vs. FLRT

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

BSJT (Invesco BulletShares 2029 High Yield Corporate Bond ETF) and FLRT (Pacific Global Senior Loan ETF) are both High Yield Bonds funds. BSJT is passively managed, while FLRT is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, BSJT returned 8.46%/yr vs 8.90%/yr for FLRT. At a 0.31 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. BSJT charges 0.42%/yr vs 0.69%/yr for FLRT.

Performance

BSJT vs. FLRT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco BulletShares 2029 High Yield Corporate Bond ETF (BSJT) and Pacific Global Senior Loan ETF (FLRT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BSJT achieves a 1.21% return, which is significantly lower than FLRT's 1.83% return.

BSJT

• 1D: -0.14%
• 1M: 0.50%
• YTD: 1.21%
• 6M: 1.62%
• 1Y: 6.57%
• 3Y*: 8.46%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FLRT

• 1D: -0.15%
• 1M: 0.90%
• YTD: 1.83%
• 6M: 2.55%
• 1Y: 6.08%
• 3Y*: 8.90%
• 5Y*: 5.98%
• 10Y*: 5.00%

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

BSJT vs. FLRT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
BSJT Invesco BulletShares 2029 High Yield Corporate Bond ETF	1.21%	7.63%	8.01%	13.59%	-14.85%	-0.52%
FLRT Pacific Global Senior Loan ETF	1.83%	6.24%	9.18%	14.59%	-2.72%	0.63%

Correlation

The correlation between BSJT and FLRT is 0.34, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.34
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.33
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 16, 2021	0.31

BSJT vs. FLRT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BSJT	FLRT
Consumer Cyclical	9.0%	-
Technology	7.2%	-
Energy	6.7%	-
Industrials	6.3%	-
Communication Services	3.3%	0.8%
Real Estate	3.2%	-
Financial Services	2.9%	99.2%
Basic Materials	2.8%	-
Utilities	1.9%	-
Healthcare	1.6%	-
Consumer Defensive	1.2%	-

Return for Risk

BSJT vs. FLRT — Risk / Return Rank

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

BSJT

BSJT Risk / Return Rank: 56
BSJT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 52
BSJT Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
BSJT Omega Ratio Rank: 53
BSJT Calmar Ratio Rank: 54
BSJT Martin Ratio Rank: 63

FLRT

FLRT Risk / Return Rank: 85
FLRT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
FLRT Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
FLRT Omega Ratio Rank: 97
FLRT Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
FLRT Martin Ratio Rank: 68

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.

BSJT vs. FLRT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco BulletShares 2029 High Yield Corporate Bond ETF (BSJT) and Pacific Global Senior Loan ETF (FLRT). 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.

	BSJT	FLRT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.79	3.89	-2.09
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.83	6.03	-3.20
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.95	-0.62
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.67	3.43	-0.77
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.40	12.62	-1.22
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

BSJT vs. FLRT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BSJT Sharpe Ratio is 1.79, which is lower than the FLRT Sharpe Ratio of 3.89. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BSJT and FLRT, 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

	BSJT	FLRT	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.79	3.89	-2.09
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	2.61	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.81	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.33	0.75	-0.42

Drawdowns

BSJT vs. FLRT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BSJT drawdown since its inception was -19.62%, smaller than the maximum FLRT drawdown of -20.96%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BSJT and FLRT.

Drawdown Indicators

	BSJT	FLRT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.62%	-20.96%	+1.34%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.47%	-1.78%	-0.69%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-5.59%	-2.87%	-2.72%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-7.60%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-20.96%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.14%	-0.15%	+0.01%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.45%	-1.41%	-4.04%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.58%	0.48%	+0.10%

Volatility

BSJT vs. FLRT - Volatility Comparison

Invesco BulletShares 2029 High Yield Corporate Bond ETF (BSJT) has a higher volatility of 0.97% compared to Pacific Global Senior Loan ETF (FLRT) at 0.40%. This indicates that BSJT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLRT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BSJT	FLRT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.97%	0.40%	+0.57%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.62%	1.19%	+1.43%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.69%	1.57%	+2.12%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.21%	2.30%	+5.91%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	8.21%	6.17%	+2.04%

BSJT vs. FLRT - Expense Ratio Comparison

BSJT has a 0.42% expense ratio, which is lower than FLRT's 0.69% expense ratio.

Dividends

BSJT vs. FLRT - Dividend Comparison

BSJT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.76%, which matches FLRT's 6.81% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BSJT Invesco BulletShares 2029 High Yield Corporate Bond ETF	6.76%	6.77%	6.65%	6.42%	5.45%	1.20%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FLRT Pacific Global Senior Loan ETF	6.81%	6.93%	7.93%	8.40%	5.81%	3.16%	3.52%	4.30%	3.95%	3.20%	3.38%	3.21%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BSJT and FLRT in my portfolio?

BSJT and FLRT have a correlation of 0.34, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BSJT or FLRT?

BSJT has higher volatility (0.97%) compared to FLRT (0.40%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BSJT dropped -19.62% vs FLRT's -20.96%.

Which ETF is better, BSJT or FLRT?

On 3-year performance, FLRT leads with 8.90% vs 8.46% for BSJT. On fees, BSJT is cheaper at 0.42% per year. On volatility, FLRT has been the lower-risk option at 0.40%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BSJT or FLRT?

Over the 3-year period, FLRT has performed better with a 8.90% return vs 8.46%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BSJT or FLRT?

BSJT is cheaper with a 0.42% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for FLRT.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BSJT or FLRT?

FLRT has the higher dividend yield at 6.81%, compared with 6.76% for BSJT.

What is the main difference between BSJT and FLRT?

They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Pacific Life. Their fees differ too: 0.42% for BSJT and 0.69% for FLRT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLRT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.89 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.