CLOZ vs. FBND
CLOZ (Panagram BBB-B CLO ETF) and FBND (Fidelity Total Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CLOZ is a CLO fund actively managed by Panagram, while FBND is a Intermediate Core-Plus Bond fund actively managed by Fidelity. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, CLOZ returned 10.45%/yr vs 4.60%/yr for FBND. At a 0.01 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CLOZ charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.36%/yr for FBND.
Performance
CLOZ vs. FBND - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CLOZ achieves a 2.44% return, which is significantly higher than FBND's 0.10% return.
CLOZ
- 1D
- 0.04%
- 1M
- 0.39%
- YTD
- 2.44%
- 6M
- 2.91%
- 1Y
- 6.07%
- 3Y*
- 10.45%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
FBND
- 1D
- -0.07%
- 1M
- -0.69%
- YTD
- 0.10%
- 6M
- 0.40%
- 1Y
- 5.34%
- 3Y*
- 4.60%
- 5Y*
- 0.68%
- 10Y*
- 2.47%
CLOZ vs. FBND - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
CLOZ Panagram BBB-B CLO ETF | 2.44% | 5.99% | 11.85% | 14.92% |
FBND Fidelity Total Bond ETF | 0.10% | 7.57% | 2.13% | 3.35% |
Correlation
The correlation between CLOZ and FBND is 0.08, 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 | 0.08 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | -0.00 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 25, 2023 | 0.01 |
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
CLOZ vs. FBND — Risk / Return Rank
CLOZ
FBND
CLOZ vs. FBND - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Panagram BBB-B CLO ETF (CLOZ) and Fidelity Total Bond ETF (FBND). 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 | FBND | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.36 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.17 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.45 | 1.25 | +0.20 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.56 | 2.01 | -0.45 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 5.19 | 5.97 | -0.78 |
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
| CLOZ | FBND | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.77 | 1.41 | +0.36 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.12 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.41 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 2.75 | 0.44 | +2.31 |
Drawdowns
CLOZ vs. FBND - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CLOZ drawdown since its inception was -5.32%, smaller than the maximum FBND drawdown of -17.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CLOZ and FBND.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CLOZ | FBND | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -5.32% | -17.25% | +11.93% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -3.90% | -2.66% | -1.24% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -5.32% | -5.94% | +0.62% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -17.25% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -17.25% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.21% | -1.82% | +1.61% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.38% | -3.35% | +2.97% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.17% | 0.90% | +0.27% |
Volatility
CLOZ vs. FBND - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Panagram BBB-B CLO ETF (CLOZ) is 0.47%, while Fidelity Total Bond ETF (FBND) has a volatility of 1.23%. This indicates that CLOZ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FBND based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CLOZ | FBND | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.47% | 1.23% | -0.76% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 3.13% | 2.75% | +0.38% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.44% | 3.80% | -0.36% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 3.80% | 5.92% | -2.12% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 3.80% | 6.10% | -2.30% |
CLOZ vs. FBND - Expense Ratio Comparison
CLOZ has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than FBND's 0.36% expense ratio.
Dividends
CLOZ vs. FBND - Dividend Comparison
CLOZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 7.40%, more than FBND's 4.72% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CLOZ Panagram BBB-B CLO ETF | 7.40% | 7.63% | 9.09% | 8.81% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
FBND Fidelity Total Bond ETF | 4.72% | 4.70% | 4.73% | 4.26% | 3.07% | 1.86% | 4.25% | 2.90% | 2.93% | 2.56% | 2.84% | 3.26% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CLOZ and FBND have a correlation of 0.08, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
FBND has higher volatility (1.23%) compared to CLOZ (0.47%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CLOZ dropped -5.32% vs FBND's -17.25%.
On 3-year performance, CLOZ leads with 10.45% vs 4.60% for FBND. On fees, FBND is cheaper at 0.36% per year. On volatility, CLOZ has been the lower-risk option at 0.47%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 3-year period, CLOZ has performed better with a 10.45% return vs 4.60%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
FBND is cheaper with a 0.36% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for CLOZ.
CLOZ has the higher dividend yield at 7.40%, compared with 4.72% for FBND.
CLOZ is categorized as CLO, while FBND is Intermediate Core-Plus Bond. They also come from different issuers: Panagram and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for CLOZ and 0.36% for FBND.
CLOZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.77 vs 1.41), 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 CLOZ and FBND
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