CUT vs. RBIL

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CUT (Invesco MSCI Global Timber ETF) and RBIL (F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CUT is a Materials fund tracking the Beacon Global Timber Index, while RBIL is a Inflation-Protected Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg US Ultrashort TIPS 1-13 Months Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, CUT returned -7.17% vs 4.57% for RBIL. At a correlation of -0.19, they often move in opposite directions. CUT charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.17%/yr for RBIL.

Performance

CUT vs. RBIL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco MSCI Global Timber ETF (CUT) and F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CUT achieves a -5.58% return, which is significantly lower than RBIL's 2.70% return.

CUT

• 1D: 0.52%
• 1M: 0.52%
• YTD: -5.58%
• 6M: -2.56%
• 1Y: -7.17%
• 3Y*: 0.54%
• 5Y*: -4.30%
• 10Y*: 3.93%

RBIL

• 1D: 0.06%
• 1M: 0.38%
• YTD: 2.70%
• 6M: 2.79%
• 1Y: 4.57%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CUT vs. RBIL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CUT Invesco MSCI Global Timber ETF	-5.58%	-8.67%
RBIL F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF	2.70%	2.91%

Correlation

The correlation between CUT and RBIL is -0.25, 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	-0.25
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 26, 2025	-0.19

Return for Risk

CUT vs. RBIL — Risk / Return Rank

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

CUT

CUT Risk / Return Rank: 5
CUT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5
CUT Sortino Ratio Rank: 5
CUT Omega Ratio Rank: 5
CUT Calmar Ratio Rank: 6
CUT Martin Ratio Rank: 5

RBIL

RBIL Risk / Return Rank: 98
RBIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
RBIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
RBIL Omega Ratio Rank: 98
RBIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
RBIL 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.

CUT vs. RBIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco MSCI Global Timber ETF (CUT) and F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL). 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.

	CUT	RBIL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.39	5.01	-5.40
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.44	7.92	-8.36
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.95	2.39	-1.44
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.37	17.00	-17.37
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.81	70.66	-71.47
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CUT vs. RBIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CUT Sharpe Ratio is -0.39, which is lower than the RBIL Sharpe Ratio of 5.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CUT and RBIL, 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

	CUT	RBIL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.39	5.01	-5.40
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.23	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.20	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.11	4.28	-4.16

Drawdowns

CUT vs. RBIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CUT drawdown since its inception was -70.03%, which is greater than RBIL's maximum drawdown of -0.50%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CUT and RBIL.

Drawdown Indicators

	CUT	RBIL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-70.03%	-0.50%	-69.53%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-19.62%	-0.27%	-19.35%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.23%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-30.40%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-45.76%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-22.99%	0.00%	-22.99%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-15.26%	-0.06%	-15.20%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.88%	0.07%	+8.81%

Volatility

CUT vs. RBIL - Volatility Comparison

Invesco MSCI Global Timber ETF (CUT) has a higher volatility of 5.90% compared to F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL) at 0.30%. This indicates that CUT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RBIL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CUT	RBIL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.90%	0.30%	+5.60%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.05%	0.79%	+13.26%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.57%	0.92%	+17.65%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.48%	1.05%	+17.43%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.22%	1.05%	+19.17%

CUT vs. RBIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

CUT has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than RBIL's 0.17% expense ratio.

Dividends

CUT vs. RBIL - Dividend Comparison

CUT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.61%, less than RBIL's 4.60% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CUT Invesco MSCI Global Timber ETF	2.61%	2.46%	3.05%	2.44%	2.58%	1.57%	1.65%	2.67%	3.43%	1.57%	2.08%	1.52%
RBIL F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF	4.60%	3.65%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CUT and RBIL in my portfolio?

CUT and RBIL have a correlation of -0.25, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CUT or RBIL?

CUT has higher volatility (5.90%) compared to RBIL (0.30%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CUT dropped -70.03% vs RBIL's -0.50%.

Which ETF is better, CUT or RBIL?

On 1-year performance, RBIL leads with 4.57% vs -7.17% for CUT. On fees, RBIL is cheaper at 0.17% per year. On volatility, RBIL has been the lower-risk option at 0.30%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CUT or RBIL?

Over the 1-year period, RBIL has performed better with a 4.57% return vs -7.17%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CUT or RBIL?

RBIL is cheaper with a 0.17% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for CUT.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CUT or RBIL?

RBIL has the higher dividend yield at 4.60%, compared with 2.61% for CUT.

What is the main difference between CUT and RBIL?

CUT is categorized as Materials, while RBIL is Inflation-Protected Bonds. CUT tracks Beacon Global Timber Index, while RBIL tracks Bloomberg US Ultrashort TIPS 1-13 Months Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and F/m. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for CUT and 0.17% for RBIL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RBIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (5.01 vs -0.39), 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.