PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
CAML vs. RBIL
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

CAML vs. RBIL - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CAML achieves a 2.96% return, which is significantly higher than RBIL's 2.32% return.


CAML

1D
-2.00%
1M
-0.91%
YTD
2.96%
6M
1.81%
1Y
11.90%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*

RBIL

1D
0.01%
1M
-0.19%
YTD
2.32%
6M
2.37%
1Y
4.07%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CAML vs. RBIL - Yearly Performance Comparison


Correlation

The correlation between CAML and RBIL is -0.18, 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

-0.18

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 25, 2025

-0.19

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

CAML vs. RBIL — Risk / Return Rank

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

CAML
CAML Risk / Return Rank: 2222
Overall Rank
CAML Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2323
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CAML Sortino Ratio Rank: 2222
Sortino Ratio Rank
CAML Omega Ratio Rank: 2222
Omega Ratio Rank
CAML Calmar Ratio Rank: 1919
Calmar Ratio Rank
CAML Martin Ratio Rank: 2222
Martin Ratio Rank

RBIL
RBIL Risk / Return Rank: 9797
Overall Rank
RBIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9797
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RBIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 9898
Sortino Ratio Rank
RBIL Omega Ratio Rank: 9898
Omega Ratio Rank
RBIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 9696
Calmar Ratio Rank
RBIL Martin Ratio Rank: 9797
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

CAML vs. RBIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Congress Large Cap Growth ETF (CAML) 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.


CAMLRBILDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-3.57

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-5.52

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.14

2.13

-0.99

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.80

7.82

-7.02

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

2.62

42.95

-40.33

CAML vs. RBIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CAML Sharpe Ratio is 0.78, which is lower than the RBIL Sharpe Ratio of 4.35. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CAML 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.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

CAML vs. RBIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CAML drawdown since its inception was -21.06%, which is greater than RBIL's maximum drawdown of -0.52%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CAML and RBIL.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CAMLRBILDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-21.06%

-0.52%

-20.54%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-14.86%

-0.52%

-14.34%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.53%

-0.50%

-3.03%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.06%

-0.07%

-2.99%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

4.54%

0.10%

+4.44%

Volatility

CAML vs. RBIL - Volatility Comparison

Congress Large Cap Growth ETF (CAML) has a higher volatility of 5.99% compared to F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL) at 0.36%. This indicates that CAML'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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CAMLRBILDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.99%

0.36%

+5.63%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.25%

0.85%

+11.40%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.41%

0.95%

+14.46%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

17.88%

1.07%

+16.81%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

17.88%

1.07%

+16.81%

CAML vs. RBIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

CAML has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than RBIL's 0.17% expense ratio.


Dividends

CAML vs. RBIL - Dividend Comparison

CAML has not paid dividends to shareholders, while RBIL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.38%.


PositionTTM202520242023
CAML
Congress Large Cap Growth ETF
0.00%0.00%0.06%0.15%
RBIL
F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF
4.38%3.65%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


CAML and RBIL have a correlation of -0.18, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

CAML has higher volatility (5.99%) compared to RBIL (0.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CAML dropped -21.06% vs RBIL's -0.52%.

On 1-year performance, CAML leads with 11.90% vs 4.07% 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.

Over the 1-year period, CAML has performed better with a 11.90% return vs 4.07%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

RBIL is cheaper with a 0.17% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for CAML.

RBIL has the higher dividend yield at 4.38%, compared with 0.00% for CAML.

CAML is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while RBIL is Inflation-Protected Bonds. They also come from different issuers: Congress and F/m. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for CAML and 0.17% for RBIL.

RBIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.35 vs 0.78), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CAML and RBIL

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