CLOZ vs. FAAR

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

CLOZ (Panagram BBB-B CLO ETF) and FAAR (First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CLOZ is a CLO fund actively managed by Panagram, while FAAR is a Commodities fund actively managed by First Trust. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, CLOZ returned 10.65%/yr vs 11.68%/yr for FAAR. At a correlation of -0.03, they often move in opposite directions. CLOZ charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for FAAR.

Performance

CLOZ vs. FAAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Panagram BBB-B CLO ETF (CLOZ) and First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF (FAAR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CLOZ achieves a 2.62% return, which is significantly lower than FAAR's 25.13% return.

CLOZ

• 1D: 0.08%
• 1M: 0.67%
• YTD: 2.62%
• 6M: 3.25%
• 1Y: 6.62%
• 3Y*: 10.65%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FAAR

• 1D: -0.47%
• 1M: -0.49%
• YTD: 25.13%
• 6M: 21.92%
• 1Y: 40.27%
• 3Y*: 11.68%
• 5Y*: 7.97%
• 10Y*: 5.12%

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

CLOZ vs. FAAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
CLOZ Panagram BBB-B CLO ETF	2.62%	5.99%	11.85%	14.92%
FAAR First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF	25.13%	8.07%	5.97%	-5.06%

Correlation

The correlation between CLOZ and FAAR is -0.11, 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	-0.11
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.02
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 25, 2023	-0.03

Return for Risk

CLOZ vs. FAAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

CLOZ

CLOZ Risk / Return Rank: 53
CLOZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 58
CLOZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 51
CLOZ Omega Ratio Rank: 83
CLOZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 35
CLOZ Martin Ratio Rank: 37

FAAR

FAAR Risk / Return Rank: 90
FAAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
FAAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
FAAR Omega Ratio Rank: 85
FAAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
FAAR Martin Ratio Rank: 92

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.

CLOZ vs. FAAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Panagram BBB-B CLO ETF (CLOZ) and First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF (FAAR). 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.

	CLOZ	FAAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.93	3.00	-1.07
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.47	4.18	-1.72
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.50	1.51	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.70	8.35	-6.65
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.66	23.34	-17.68
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CLOZ vs. FAAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CLOZ Sharpe Ratio is 1.93, which is lower than the FAAR Sharpe Ratio of 3.00. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CLOZ and FAAR, 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

	CLOZ	FAAR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.93	3.00	-1.07
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.62	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.45	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	2.77	0.44	+2.33

Drawdowns

CLOZ vs. FAAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CLOZ drawdown since its inception was -5.32%, smaller than the maximum FAAR drawdown of -18.03%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CLOZ and FAAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	CLOZ	FAAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-5.32%	-18.03%	+12.71%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.90%	-4.85%	+0.95%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-5.32%	-11.54%	+6.22%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-18.03%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-18.03%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.03%	-1.57%	+1.54%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.38%	-7.84%	+7.46%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.17%	1.73%	-0.56%

Volatility

CLOZ vs. FAAR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Panagram BBB-B CLO ETF (CLOZ) is 0.42%, while First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF (FAAR) has a volatility of 2.36%. This indicates that CLOZ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FAAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CLOZ	FAAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.42%	2.36%	-1.94%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.13%	9.70%	-6.57%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.45%	13.49%	-10.04%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.80%	13.01%	-9.21%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.80%	11.51%	-7.71%

CLOZ vs. FAAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

CLOZ has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than FAAR's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

CLOZ vs. FAAR - Dividend Comparison

CLOZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 7.38%, less than FAAR's 9.20% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CLOZ Panagram BBB-B CLO ETF	7.38%	7.63%	9.09%	8.81%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FAAR First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF	9.20%	11.63%	3.45%	3.20%	5.82%	6.49%	3.05%	1.02%	0.58%	2.83%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CLOZ and FAAR in my portfolio?

CLOZ and FAAR have a correlation of -0.11, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CLOZ or FAAR?

FAAR has higher volatility (2.36%) compared to CLOZ (0.42%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CLOZ dropped -5.32% vs FAAR's -18.03%.

Which ETF is better, CLOZ or FAAR?

On 3-year performance, FAAR leads with 11.68% vs 10.65% for CLOZ. On fees, CLOZ is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, CLOZ has been the lower-risk option at 0.42%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CLOZ or FAAR?

Over the 3-year period, FAAR has performed better with a 11.68% return vs 10.65%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CLOZ or FAAR?

CLOZ is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for FAAR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CLOZ or FAAR?

FAAR has the higher dividend yield at 9.20%, compared with 7.38% for CLOZ.

What is the main difference between CLOZ and FAAR?

CLOZ is categorized as CLO, while FAAR is Commodities. They also come from different issuers: Panagram and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for CLOZ and 0.95% for FAAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FAAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.00 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.