CUSD vs. FLTR

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

CUSD (CrossingBridge Ultra-Short Duration ETF) and FLTR (VanEck IG Floating Rate ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CUSD is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by CrossingBridge, while FLTR is a Corporate Bonds fund tracking the MVIS US Investment Grade Floating Rate Index. CUSD is actively managed, while FLTR is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, CUSD returned 5.80%/yr vs 6.16%/yr for FLTR. At a 0.00 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. CUSD charges 0.81%/yr vs 0.14%/yr for FLTR.

Performance

CUSD vs. FLTR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in CrossingBridge Ultra-Short Duration ETF (CUSD) and VanEck IG Floating Rate ETF (FLTR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CUSD achieves a 4.97% return, which is significantly higher than FLTR's 2.19% return.

CUSD

• 1D: 3.80%
• 1M: 3.10%
• YTD: 4.97%
• 6M: 5.87%
• 1Y: 6.58%
• 3Y*: 5.80%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FLTR

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.38%
• YTD: 2.19%
• 6M: 2.32%
• 1Y: 5.21%
• 3Y*: 6.16%
• 5Y*: 4.54%
• 10Y*: 3.49%

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

CUSD vs. FLTR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
CUSD CrossingBridge Ultra-Short Duration ETF	4.97%	5.02%	4.57%	6.05%	2.03%	2.45%
FLTR VanEck IG Floating Rate ETF	2.19%	5.22%	7.38%	7.41%	0.74%	-0.14%

Correlation

The correlation between CUSD and FLTR is 0.07, 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	0.07
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.01
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 21, 2021	0.00

Return for Risk

CUSD vs. FLTR — Risk / Return Rank

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

CUSD

CUSD Risk / Return Rank: 20
CUSD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 16
CUSD Sortino Ratio Rank: 16
CUSD Omega Ratio Rank: 19
CUSD Calmar Ratio Rank: 26
CUSD Martin Ratio Rank: 25

FLTR

FLTR Risk / Return Rank: 99
FLTR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
FLTR Sortino Ratio Rank: 99
FLTR Omega Ratio Rank: 99
FLTR Calmar Ratio Rank: 99
FLTR Martin Ratio Rank: 99

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.

CUSD vs. FLTR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for CrossingBridge Ultra-Short Duration ETF (CUSD) and VanEck IG Floating Rate ETF (FLTR). 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.

	CUSD	FLTR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.45	6.50	-6.05
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.80	12.09	-11.28
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.13	3.02	-1.89
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.22	16.69	-15.47
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.09	97.91	-94.83

CUSD vs. FLTR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CUSD Sharpe Ratio is 0.45, which is lower than the FLTR Sharpe Ratio of 6.50. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CUSD and FLTR, 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

CUSD vs. FLTR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CUSD drawdown since its inception was -5.42%, smaller than the maximum FLTR drawdown of -17.84%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CUSD and FLTR.

Drawdown Indicators

	CUSD	FLTR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-5.42%	-17.84%	+12.42%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.42%	-0.31%	-5.11%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-5.42%	-1.93%	-3.49%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-3.06%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-17.84%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.48%	-0.67%	+0.19%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.14%	0.05%	+2.09%

Volatility

CUSD vs. FLTR - Volatility Comparison

CrossingBridge Ultra-Short Duration ETF (CUSD) has a higher volatility of 6.15% compared to VanEck IG Floating Rate ETF (FLTR) at 0.29%. This indicates that CUSD's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLTR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CUSD	FLTR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.15%	0.29%	+5.86%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.99%	0.66%	+11.33%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.64%	0.81%	+13.83%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.39%	2.13%	+5.26%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.39%	5.00%	+2.39%

CUSD vs. FLTR - Expense Ratio Comparison

CUSD has a 0.81% expense ratio, which is higher than FLTR's 0.14% expense ratio.

Dividends

CUSD vs. FLTR - Dividend Comparison

CUSD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 13.39%, more than FLTR's 4.72% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CUSD CrossingBridge Ultra-Short Duration ETF	13.39%	14.05%	7.10%	3.62%	1.14%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FLTR VanEck IG Floating Rate ETF	4.72%	4.97%	5.93%	6.07%	2.29%	0.63%	1.49%	3.05%	2.67%	1.69%	1.16%	0.71%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CUSD and FLTR in my portfolio?

CUSD and FLTR have a correlation of 0.07, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CUSD or FLTR?

CUSD has higher volatility (6.15%) compared to FLTR (0.29%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CUSD dropped -5.42% vs FLTR's -17.84%.

Which ETF is better, CUSD or FLTR?

On 3-year performance, FLTR leads with 6.16% vs 5.80% for CUSD. On fees, FLTR is cheaper at 0.14% per year. On volatility, FLTR has been the lower-risk option at 0.29%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CUSD or FLTR?

Over the 3-year period, FLTR has performed better with a 6.16% return vs 5.80%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CUSD or FLTR?

FLTR is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.81% for CUSD.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CUSD or FLTR?

CUSD has the higher dividend yield at 13.39%, compared with 4.72% for FLTR.

What is the main difference between CUSD and FLTR?

CUSD is categorized as Ultrashort Bond, while FLTR is Corporate Bonds. They also come from different issuers: CrossingBridge and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.81% for CUSD and 0.14% for FLTR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLTR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (6.50 vs 0.45), 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.