CAFG vs. RBIL

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

CAFG (Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF) and RBIL (F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CAFG is a Small Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while RBIL is a Inflation-Protected Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg US Ultrashort TIPS 1-13 Months Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, CAFG returned 36.59% vs 3.95% for RBIL. At a correlation of -0.13, they often move in opposite directions. CAFG charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.17%/yr for RBIL.

Performance

CAFG vs. RBIL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (CAFG) and F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CAFG achieves a 28.41% return, which is significantly higher than RBIL's 2.31% return.

CAFG

• 1D: 0.27%
• 1M: 3.32%
• YTD: 28.41%
• 6M: 25.69%
• 1Y: 36.59%
• 3Y*: 15.20%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RBIL

• 1D: -0.05%
• 1M: -0.20%
• YTD: 2.31%
• 6M: 2.35%
• 1Y: 3.95%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CAFG vs. RBIL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CAFG Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF	28.41%	1.77%
RBIL F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF	2.31%	2.85%

Correlation

The correlation between CAFG and RBIL is -0.14, 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	-0.14
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 25, 2025	-0.13

Return for Risk

CAFG vs. RBIL — Risk / Return Rank

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

CAFG

CAFG Risk / Return Rank: 71
CAFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
CAFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
CAFG Omega Ratio Rank: 60
CAFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
CAFG Martin Ratio Rank: 79

RBIL

RBIL Risk / Return Rank: 97
RBIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
RBIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
RBIL Omega Ratio Rank: 98
RBIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
RBIL Martin Ratio Rank: 97

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.

CAFG vs. RBIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (CAFG) and F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	CAFG	RBIL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.09	4.18	-2.09
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.94	6.39	-3.45
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.35	2.06	-0.71
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.52	7.59	-3.07
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.88	44.07	-29.19

CAFG vs. RBIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CAFG Sharpe Ratio is 2.09, which is lower than the RBIL Sharpe Ratio of 4.18. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CAFG and RBIL, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

CAFG vs. RBIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CAFG drawdown since its inception was -23.66%, which is greater than RBIL's maximum drawdown of -0.52%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CAFG and RBIL.

Drawdown Indicators

	CAFG	RBIL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.66%	-0.52%	-23.14%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.13%	-0.52%	-7.61%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.66%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.16%	-0.51%	+0.35%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.45%	-0.07%	-5.38%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.46%	0.09%	+2.37%

Volatility

CAFG vs. RBIL - Volatility Comparison

Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (CAFG) has a higher volatility of 5.05% compared to F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL) at 0.36%. This indicates that CAFG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RBIL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CAFG	RBIL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.05%	0.36%	+4.69%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.15%	0.85%	+12.30%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.64%	0.95%	+16.69%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.55%	1.07%	+18.48%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.55%	1.07%	+18.48%

CAFG vs. RBIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

CAFG has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is higher than RBIL's 0.17% expense ratio.

Dividends

CAFG vs. RBIL - Dividend Comparison

CAFG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.31%, less than RBIL's 4.38% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
CAFG Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF	0.31%	0.35%	0.36%	0.39%
RBIL F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF	4.38%	3.65%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CAFG and RBIL in my portfolio?

CAFG and RBIL have a correlation of -0.14, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CAFG or RBIL?

CAFG has higher volatility (5.05%) compared to RBIL (0.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CAFG dropped -23.66% vs RBIL's -0.52%.

Which ETF is better, CAFG or RBIL?

On 1-year performance, CAFG leads with 36.59% vs 3.95% for RBIL. On fees, RBIL is cheaper at 0.17% per year. On volatility, RBIL has been the lower-risk option at 0.36%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CAFG or RBIL?

Over the 1-year period, CAFG has performed better with a 36.59% return vs 3.95%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CAFG or RBIL?

RBIL is cheaper with a 0.17% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for CAFG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CAFG or RBIL?

RBIL has the higher dividend yield at 4.38%, compared with 0.31% for CAFG.

What is the main difference between CAFG and RBIL?

CAFG is categorized as Small Cap Growth Equities, while RBIL is Inflation-Protected Bonds. CAFG tracks Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while RBIL tracks Bloomberg US Ultrashort TIPS 1-13 Months Index. They also come from different issuers: Pacer and F/m. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for CAFG and 0.17% for RBIL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RBIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.18 vs 2.09), 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.