CZA vs. RBIL

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

CZA (Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF) and RBIL (F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CZA is a Mid Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Zacks Mid-Cap Core 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, CZA returned 16.67% vs 3.95% for RBIL. At a correlation of -0.16, they often move in opposite directions. CZA charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.17%/yr for RBIL.

Performance

CZA vs. RBIL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA) 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, CZA achieves a 7.88% return, which is significantly higher than RBIL's 2.31% return.

CZA

• 1D: 0.52%
• 1M: 2.32%
• YTD: 7.88%
• 6M: 6.71%
• 1Y: 16.67%
• 3Y*: 12.98%
• 5Y*: 7.42%
• 10Y*: 10.64%

RBIL

• 1D: -0.05%
• 1M: -0.20%
• YTD: 2.31%
• 6M: 2.35%
• 1Y: 3.95%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CZA vs. RBIL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CZA Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF	7.88%	6.21%
RBIL F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF	2.31%	2.85%

Correlation

The correlation between CZA and RBIL is -0.19, 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	-0.19
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 25, 2025	-0.16

Return for Risk

CZA vs. RBIL — Risk / Return Rank

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

CZA

CZA Risk / Return Rank: 39
CZA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
CZA Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
CZA Omega Ratio Rank: 35
CZA Calmar Ratio Rank: 37
CZA Martin Ratio Rank: 44

RBIL

RBIL Risk / Return Rank: 97
RBIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
RBIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
RBIL Omega Ratio Rank: 98
RBIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 95
RBIL Martin Ratio Rank: 97

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.

CZA vs. RBIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA) 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.

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.

	CZA	RBIL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.31	4.18	-2.87
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.97	6.39	-4.42
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	2.06	-0.83
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.82	7.59	-5.77
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.96	44.07	-37.11

CZA vs. RBIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CZA Sharpe Ratio is 1.31, which is lower than the RBIL Sharpe Ratio of 4.18. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CZA 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.

Drawdowns

CZA vs. RBIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CZA drawdown since its inception was -53.20%, which is greater than RBIL's maximum drawdown of -0.52%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CZA and RBIL.

Drawdown Indicators

	CZA	RBIL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-53.20%	-0.52%	-52.68%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.21%	-0.52%	-8.69%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.92%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-18.92%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-46.18%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.80%	-0.51%	-0.29%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.87%	-0.07%	-6.80%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.40%	0.09%	+2.31%

Volatility

CZA vs. RBIL - Volatility Comparison

Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA) has a higher volatility of 2.90% compared to F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL) at 0.36%. This indicates that CZA'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

	CZA	RBIL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.90%	0.36%	+2.54%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.42%	0.85%	+8.57%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.83%	0.95%	+11.88%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.14%	1.07%	+15.07%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.29%	1.07%	+18.22%

CZA vs. RBIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

CZA has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is higher than RBIL's 0.17% expense ratio.

Dividends

CZA vs. RBIL - Dividend Comparison

CZA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.44%, less than RBIL's 4.38% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CZA Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF	1.44%	1.56%	1.27%	1.36%	1.71%	0.89%	1.42%	1.40%	1.27%	1.10%	1.87%	1.37%
RBIL F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF	4.38%	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 CZA and RBIL in my portfolio?

CZA and RBIL have a correlation of -0.19, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CZA or RBIL?

CZA has higher volatility (2.90%) compared to RBIL (0.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CZA dropped -53.20% vs RBIL's -0.52%.

Which ETF is better, CZA or RBIL?

On 1-year performance, CZA leads with 16.67% vs 3.95% for RBIL. On fees, RBIL is cheaper at 0.17% per year. On volatility, RBIL has been the lower-risk option at 0.36%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CZA or RBIL?

Over the 1-year period, CZA has performed better with a 16.67% return vs 3.95%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CZA or RBIL?

RBIL is cheaper with a 0.17% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for CZA.

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

RBIL has the higher dividend yield at 4.38%, compared with 1.44% for CZA.

What is the main difference between CZA and RBIL?

CZA is categorized as Mid Cap Blend Equities, while RBIL is Inflation-Protected Bonds. CZA tracks Zacks Mid-Cap Core 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: 0.69% for CZA and 0.17% for RBIL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RBIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.18 vs 1.31), 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.