CLOZ vs. FDVV

Last updated Jun 9, 2026

CLOZ (Panagram BBB-B CLO ETF) and FDVV (Fidelity High Dividend ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CLOZ is a CLO fund actively managed by Panagram, while FDVV is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Fidelity Core Dividend Index. CLOZ is actively managed, while FDVV is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, CLOZ returned 10.45%/yr vs 19.56%/yr for FDVV. At a 0.22 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CLOZ charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.29%/yr for FDVV.

Performance

CLOZ vs. FDVV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Panagram BBB-B CLO ETF (CLOZ) and Fidelity High Dividend ETF (FDVV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CLOZ achieves a 2.44% return, which is significantly lower than FDVV's 7.59% return.

CLOZ

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: 0.39%
• YTD: 2.44%
• 6M: 2.91%
• 1Y: 6.07%
• 3Y*: 10.45%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FDVV

• 1D: -0.21%
• 1M: 1.68%
• YTD: 7.59%
• 6M: 7.85%
• 1Y: 22.32%
• 3Y*: 19.56%
• 5Y*: 13.25%
• 10Y*: —

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

CLOZ vs. FDVV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
CLOZ Panagram BBB-B CLO ETF	2.44%	5.99%	11.85%	14.92%
FDVV Fidelity High Dividend ETF	7.59%	17.08%	21.81%	13.00%

Correlation

The correlation between CLOZ and FDVV is 0.32, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.32
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.23
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 25, 2023	0.22

Return for Risk

CLOZ vs. FDVV — 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: 36

FDVV

FDVV Risk / Return Rank: 69
FDVV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
FDVV Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
FDVV Omega Ratio Rank: 77
FDVV Calmar Ratio Rank: 54
FDVV Martin Ratio Rank: 61

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. FDVV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Panagram BBB-B CLO ETF (CLOZ) and Fidelity High Dividend ETF (FDVV). 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	FDVV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.77	2.23	-0.46
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.26	3.12	-0.85
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.45	1.41	+0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.56	2.41	-0.85
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.19	10.00	-4.82
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. FDVV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CLOZ Sharpe Ratio is 1.77, which is comparable to the FDVV Sharpe Ratio of 2.23. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CLOZ and FDVV, 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	FDVV	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.77	2.23	-0.46
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.90	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	2.75	0.79	+1.96

Drawdowns

CLOZ vs. FDVV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CLOZ drawdown since its inception was -5.32%, smaller than the maximum FDVV drawdown of -40.25%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CLOZ and FDVV.

Drawdown Indicators

	CLOZ	FDVV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-5.32%	-40.25%	+34.93%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.90%	-9.30%	+5.40%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-5.32%	-15.90%	+10.58%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-20.18%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.21%	-1.85%	+1.64%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.38%	-3.80%	+3.42%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.17%	2.24%	-1.07%

Volatility

CLOZ vs. FDVV - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Panagram BBB-B CLO ETF (CLOZ) is 0.47%, while Fidelity High Dividend ETF (FDVV) has a volatility of 2.96%. This indicates that CLOZ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FDVV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CLOZ	FDVV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.47%	2.96%	-2.49%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.13%	8.08%	-4.95%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.44%	10.07%	-6.63%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.80%	14.75%	-10.95%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.80%	16.99%	-13.19%

CLOZ vs. FDVV - Expense Ratio Comparison

CLOZ has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than FDVV's 0.29% expense ratio.

Dividends

CLOZ vs. FDVV - Dividend Comparison

CLOZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 7.40%, more than FDVV's 2.74% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
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%
FDVV Fidelity High Dividend ETF	2.74%	2.89%	2.94%	3.77%	3.44%	2.70%	3.19%	3.93%	4.05%	3.66%	1.04%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CLOZ and FDVV in my portfolio?

CLOZ and FDVV have a correlation of 0.32, 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 FDVV?

FDVV has higher volatility (2.96%) compared to CLOZ (0.47%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CLOZ dropped -5.32% vs FDVV's -40.25%.

Which ETF is better, CLOZ or FDVV?

On 3-year performance, FDVV leads with 19.56% vs 10.45% for CLOZ. On fees, FDVV is cheaper at 0.29% 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.

Which ETF has performed better, CLOZ or FDVV?

Over the 3-year period, FDVV has performed better with a 19.56% return vs 10.45%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CLOZ or FDVV?

FDVV is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for CLOZ.

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

CLOZ has the higher dividend yield at 7.40%, compared with 2.74% for FDVV.

What is the main difference between CLOZ and FDVV?

CLOZ is categorized as CLO, while FDVV is Large Cap Blend Equities. They also come from different issuers: Panagram and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for CLOZ and 0.29% for FDVV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FDVV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.23 vs 1.77), 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.