BYLD vs. CFIT
BYLD (iShares Yield Optimized Bond ETF) and CFIT (Cambria Fixed Income Trend ETF) are both Intermediate Core-Plus Bond funds. BYLD is passively managed, while CFIT is actively managed. Over the past year, BYLD returned 7.32% vs 13.11% for CFIT. A 0.64 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BYLD charges 0.17%/yr vs 0.71%/yr for CFIT.
Performance
BYLD vs. CFIT - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BYLD achieves a 1.41% return, which is significantly lower than CFIT's 6.14% return.
BYLD
- 1D
- 0.08%
- 1M
- 0.49%
- YTD
- 1.41%
- 6M
- 1.62%
- 1Y
- 7.32%
- 3Y*
- 6.56%
- 5Y*
- 2.32%
- 10Y*
- 3.03%
CFIT
- 1D
- 0.28%
- 1M
- 2.43%
- YTD
- 6.14%
- 6M
- 6.20%
- 1Y
- 13.11%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
BYLD vs. CFIT - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
BYLD iShares Yield Optimized Bond ETF | 1.41% | 6.26% |
CFIT Cambria Fixed Income Trend ETF | 6.14% | 3.59% |
Correlation
The correlation between BYLD and CFIT is 0.63, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.63 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 31, 2025 | 0.64 |
The correlation between BYLD and CFIT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.63 to 0.64 - a consistent structural relationship.
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
BYLD vs. CFIT — Risk / Return Rank
BYLD
CFIT
BYLD vs. CFIT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Yield Optimized Bond ETF (BYLD) and Cambria Fixed Income Trend ETF (CFIT). 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.
| BYLD | CFIT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 1.93 | 2.40 | -0.47 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 2.88 | 3.38 | -0.50 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.36 | 1.46 | -0.10 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.64 | 3.07 | -0.43 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 10.73 | 11.57 | -0.83 |
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
| BYLD | CFIT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.93 | 2.40 | -0.47 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.45 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.56 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.57 | 1.55 | -0.98 |
Drawdowns
BYLD vs. CFIT - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BYLD drawdown since its inception was -14.75%, which is greater than CFIT's maximum drawdown of -4.23%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BYLD and CFIT.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BYLD | CFIT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -14.75% | -4.23% | -10.52% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.71% | -4.23% | +1.52% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -3.94% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -14.65% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -14.75% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.16% | 0.00% | -0.16% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -2.51% | -1.21% | -1.30% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.67% | 1.12% | -0.45% |
Volatility
BYLD vs. CFIT - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for iShares Yield Optimized Bond ETF (BYLD) is 1.44%, while Cambria Fixed Income Trend ETF (CFIT) has a volatility of 1.63%. This indicates that BYLD experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CFIT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BYLD | CFIT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.44% | 1.63% | -0.19% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 2.96% | 4.37% | -1.41% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.82% | 5.49% | -1.67% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 5.20% | 5.45% | -0.25% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 5.43% | 5.45% | -0.02% |
BYLD vs. CFIT - Expense Ratio Comparison
BYLD has a 0.17% expense ratio, which is lower than CFIT's 0.71% expense ratio.
Dividends
BYLD vs. CFIT - Dividend Comparison
BYLD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.80%, more than CFIT's 4.07% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BYLD iShares Yield Optimized Bond ETF | 5.80% | 5.32% | 5.31% | 4.45% | 3.39% | 2.18% | 3.41% | 3.67% | 4.22% | 3.22% | 3.14% | 3.37% |
CFIT Cambria Fixed Income Trend ETF | 4.07% | 3.14% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
BYLD and CFIT have a correlation of 0.63, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
CFIT has higher volatility (1.63%) compared to BYLD (1.44%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BYLD dropped -14.75% vs CFIT's -4.23%.
On 1-year performance, CFIT leads with 13.11% vs 7.32% for BYLD. On fees, BYLD is cheaper at 0.17% per year. On volatility, BYLD has been the lower-risk option at 1.44%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, CFIT has performed better with a 13.11% return vs 7.32%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
BYLD is cheaper with a 0.17% expense ratio, compared with 0.71% for CFIT.
BYLD has the higher dividend yield at 5.80%, compared with 4.07% for CFIT.
They also come from different issuers: iShares and Cambria. Their fees differ too: 0.17% for BYLD and 0.71% for CFIT.
CFIT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.40 vs 1.93), 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 BYLD and CFIT
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