CLOZ vs. RAAA

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

CLOZ (Panagram BBB-B CLO ETF) and RAAA (Reckoner Leveraged AAA CLO ETF) are both CLO funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, CLOZ returned 5.83% vs 5.48% for RAAA. At a 0.01 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CLOZ charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for RAAA.

Performance

CLOZ vs. RAAA - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with CLOZ having a 2.78% return and RAAA slightly higher at 2.90%.

CLOZ

• 1D: -0.15%
• 1M: 0.19%
• 6M: 2.32%
• YTD: 2.78%
• 1Y: 5.83%
• 3Y*: 9.73%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RAAA

• 1D: -0.00%
• 1M: 0.51%
• 6M: 2.43%
• YTD: 2.90%
• 1Y: 5.48%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CLOZ vs. RAAA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CLOZ Panagram BBB-B CLO ETF	2.78%	2.93%
RAAA Reckoner Leveraged AAA CLO ETF	2.90%	2.52%

Correlation

The correlation between CLOZ and RAAA is 0.01, 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	0.01
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 9, 2025	0.01

Return for Risk

CLOZ vs. RAAA — Risk / Return Rank

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

CLOZ

CLOZ Risk / Return Rank: 57
CLOZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
CLOZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
CLOZ Omega Ratio Rank: 87
CLOZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 37
CLOZ Martin Ratio Rank: 40

RAAA

RAAA Risk / Return Rank: 98
RAAA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 98
RAAA Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
RAAA Omega Ratio Rank: 98
RAAA Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
RAAA Martin Ratio Rank: 98

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. RAAA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Panagram BBB-B CLO ETF (CLOZ) and Reckoner Leveraged AAA CLO ETF (RAAA). 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.

	CLOZ	RAAA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.69	4.14	-2.45
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.16	5.98	-3.82
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.43	2.14	-0.71
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.50	7.76	-6.26
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.98	43.34	-38.36

CLOZ vs. RAAA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CLOZ Sharpe Ratio is 1.69, which is lower than the RAAA Sharpe Ratio of 4.14. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CLOZ and RAAA, 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

CLOZ vs. RAAA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CLOZ drawdown since its inception was -5.32%, which is greater than RAAA's maximum drawdown of -0.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CLOZ and RAAA.

Drawdown Indicators

	CLOZ	RAAA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-5.32%	-0.71%	-4.61%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.90%	-0.71%	-3.19%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-5.32%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.23%	-0.00%	-0.23%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.38%	-0.06%	-0.32%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.17%	0.13%	+1.04%

Volatility

CLOZ vs. RAAA - Volatility Comparison

Panagram BBB-B CLO ETF (CLOZ) has a higher volatility of 0.76% compared to Reckoner Leveraged AAA CLO ETF (RAAA) at 0.14%. This indicates that CLOZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RAAA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CLOZ	RAAA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.76%	0.14%	+0.62%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.20%	0.99%	+2.21%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.47%	1.33%	+2.14%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.77%	1.33%	+2.44%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.77%	1.33%	+2.44%

CLOZ vs. RAAA - Expense Ratio Comparison

CLOZ has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than RAAA's 0.30% expense ratio.

Dividends

CLOZ vs. RAAA - Dividend Comparison

CLOZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 7.33%, more than RAAA's 5.21% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
CLOZ Panagram BBB-B CLO ETF	7.33%	7.63%	9.09%	8.81%
RAAA Reckoner Leveraged AAA CLO ETF	5.21%	2.70%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CLOZ and RAAA in my portfolio?

CLOZ and RAAA have a correlation of 0.01, 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 RAAA?

CLOZ has higher volatility (0.76%) compared to RAAA (0.14%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CLOZ dropped -5.32% vs RAAA's -0.71%.

Which ETF is better, CLOZ or RAAA?

On 1-year performance, CLOZ leads with 5.83% vs 5.48% for RAAA. On fees, RAAA is cheaper at 0.30% per year. On volatility, RAAA has been the lower-risk option at 0.14%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CLOZ or RAAA?

Over the 1-year period, CLOZ has performed better with a 5.83% return vs 5.48%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CLOZ or RAAA?

RAAA is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for CLOZ.

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

CLOZ has the higher dividend yield at 7.33%, compared with 5.21% for RAAA.

What is the main difference between CLOZ and RAAA?

They also come from different issuers: Panagram and Reckoner. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for CLOZ and 0.30% for RAAA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RAAA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.14 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.