CBON vs. FFUT

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

CBON (VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF) and FFUT (Fidelity Managed Futures ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CBON is a Emerging Markets Bonds fund tracking the ChinaBond China High Quality Bond Index, while FFUT is a Systematic Trend fund actively managed by Fidelity. CBON is passively managed, while FFUT is actively managed. Over the past year, CBON returned 8.58% vs 18.91% for FFUT. At a correlation of -0.11, they often move in opposite directions. CBON charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.80%/yr for FFUT.

Performance

CBON vs. FFUT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF (CBON) and Fidelity Managed Futures ETF (FFUT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CBON achieves a 5.02% return, which is significantly lower than FFUT's 9.23% return.

CBON

• 1D: -0.12%
• 1M: 0.31%
• YTD: 5.02%
• 6M: 5.83%
• 1Y: 8.58%
• 3Y*: 5.20%
• 5Y*: 2.24%
• 10Y*: 3.00%

FFUT

• 1D: -0.52%
• 1M: -2.34%
• YTD: 9.23%
• 6M: 9.36%
• 1Y: 18.91%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CBON vs. FFUT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CBON VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF	5.02%	3.38%
FFUT Fidelity Managed Futures ETF	9.23%	8.58%

Correlation

The correlation between CBON and FFUT is -0.10, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.10
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 5, 2025	-0.11

Return for Risk

CBON vs. FFUT — Risk / Return Rank

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

CBON

CBON Risk / Return Rank: 88
CBON Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
CBON Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
CBON Omega Ratio Rank: 86
CBON Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
CBON Martin Ratio Rank: 93

FFUT

FFUT Risk / Return Rank: 64
FFUT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 51
FFUT Sortino Ratio Rank: 51
FFUT Omega Ratio Rank: 54
FFUT Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
FFUT Martin Ratio Rank: 80

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.

CBON vs. FFUT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF (CBON) and Fidelity Managed Futures ETF (FFUT). 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.

	CBON	FFUT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.51	1.69	+0.81
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.81	2.42	+1.39
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.50	1.33	+0.17
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	6.44	4.77	+1.67
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	24.01	15.04	+8.97

CBON vs. FFUT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CBON Sharpe Ratio is 2.51, which is higher than the FFUT Sharpe Ratio of 1.69. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CBON and FFUT, 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

CBON vs. FFUT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CBON drawdown since its inception was -14.13%, which is greater than FFUT's maximum drawdown of -3.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CBON and FFUT.

Drawdown Indicators

	CBON	FFUT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.13%	-3.98%	-10.15%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.34%	-3.98%	+2.64%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-4.56%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-14.13%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-14.13%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.43%	-3.98%	+3.55%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.98%	-0.94%	-3.04%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.36%	1.26%	-0.90%

Volatility

CBON vs. FFUT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF (CBON) is 0.65%, while Fidelity Managed Futures ETF (FFUT) has a volatility of 2.92%. This indicates that CBON experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FFUT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CBON	FFUT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.65%	2.92%	-2.27%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.61%	8.96%	-6.35%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.44%	11.23%	-7.79%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	4.92%	11.03%	-6.11%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.57%	11.03%	-5.46%

CBON vs. FFUT - Expense Ratio Comparison

CBON has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than FFUT's 0.80% expense ratio.

Dividends

CBON vs. FFUT - Dividend Comparison

CBON's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.53%, less than FFUT's 1.91% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CBON VanEck Vectors ChinaAMC China Bond ETF	1.53%	1.66%	2.15%	3.01%	2.70%	3.05%	2.87%	3.87%	3.39%	3.33%	3.25%	2.78%
FFUT Fidelity Managed Futures ETF	1.91%	2.09%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CBON and FFUT in my portfolio?

CBON and FFUT have a correlation of -0.10, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CBON or FFUT?

FFUT has higher volatility (2.92%) compared to CBON (0.65%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CBON dropped -14.13% vs FFUT's -3.98%.

Which ETF is better, CBON or FFUT?

On 1-year performance, FFUT leads with 18.91% vs 8.58% for CBON. On fees, CBON is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, CBON has been the lower-risk option at 0.65%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CBON or FFUT?

Over the 1-year period, FFUT has performed better with a 18.91% return vs 8.58%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CBON or FFUT?

CBON is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for FFUT.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CBON or FFUT?

FFUT has the higher dividend yield at 1.91%, compared with 1.53% for CBON.

What is the main difference between CBON and FFUT?

CBON is categorized as Emerging Markets Bonds, while FFUT is Systematic Trend. They also come from different issuers: VanEck and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for CBON and 0.80% for FFUT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CBON currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.51 vs 1.69), 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.