CZAR vs. BIL

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

CZAR (Themes Natural Monopoly ETF) and BIL (SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CZAR is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Solactive Natural Monopoly Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while BIL is a Government Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg 1-3 Month U.S. Treasury Bill Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, CZAR returned 2.33% vs 3.85% for BIL. At a correlation of -0.09, they often move in opposite directions. CZAR charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.14%/yr for BIL.

Performance

CZAR vs. BIL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Themes Natural Monopoly ETF (CZAR) and SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF (BIL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CZAR achieves a -3.31% return, which is significantly lower than BIL's 1.66% return.

CZAR

• 1D: -0.34%
• 1M: -3.51%
• YTD: -3.31%
• 6M: -3.54%
• 1Y: 2.33%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BIL

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.27%
• YTD: 1.66%
• 6M: 1.75%
• 1Y: 3.85%
• 3Y*: 4.60%
• 5Y*: 3.45%
• 10Y*: 2.20%

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

CZAR vs. BIL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
CZAR Themes Natural Monopoly ETF	-3.31%	13.32%	10.92%	3.83%
BIL SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF	1.66%	4.15%	5.19%	0.29%

Correlation

The correlation between CZAR and BIL is -0.09, 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	-0.09
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 13, 2023	-0.09

Return for Risk

CZAR vs. BIL — Risk / Return Rank

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

CZAR

CZAR Risk / Return Rank: 11
CZAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 11
CZAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 10
CZAR Omega Ratio Rank: 10
CZAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 11
CZAR Martin Ratio Rank: 12

BIL

BIL Risk / Return Rank: 100
BIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
BIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 100
BIL Omega Ratio Rank: 100
BIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 100
BIL Martin Ratio Rank: 100

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.

CZAR vs. BIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Themes Natural Monopoly ETF (CZAR) and SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF (BIL). 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.

	CZAR	BIL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.19	19.37	-19.18
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.36	173.17	-172.81
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.04	87.41	-86.37
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.25	353.28	-353.04
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.73	2,801.35	-2,800.62

CZAR vs. BIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CZAR Sharpe Ratio is 0.19, which is lower than the BIL Sharpe Ratio of 19.37. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CZAR and BIL, 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

CZAR vs. BIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CZAR drawdown since its inception was -13.38%, which is greater than BIL's maximum drawdown of -0.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CZAR and BIL.

Drawdown Indicators

	CZAR	BIL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.38%	-0.78%	-12.60%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.54%	-0.01%	-9.53%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-0.01%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-0.09%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-0.21%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.98%	0.00%	-5.98%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.23%	-0.26%	-1.97%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.20%	0.00%	+3.20%

Volatility

CZAR vs. BIL - Volatility Comparison

Themes Natural Monopoly ETF (CZAR) has a higher volatility of 2.88% compared to SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF (BIL) at 0.07%. This indicates that CZAR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BIL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CZAR	BIL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.88%	0.07%	+2.81%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.98%	0.14%	+9.84%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.15%	0.20%	+11.95%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.99%	0.26%	+14.73%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.99%	0.26%	+14.73%

CZAR vs. BIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

CZAR has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than BIL's 0.14% expense ratio.

Dividends

CZAR vs. BIL - Dividend Comparison

CZAR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.52%, less than BIL's 3.85% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
BIL SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF	3.85%	4.13%	5.03%	4.92%	1.35%	0.00%	0.30%	2.05%	1.66%	0.68%	0.07%
CZAR Themes Natural Monopoly ETF	1.52%	1.47%	0.94%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CZAR and BIL in my portfolio?

CZAR and BIL have a correlation of -0.09, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CZAR or BIL?

CZAR has higher volatility (2.88%) compared to BIL (0.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CZAR dropped -13.38% vs BIL's -0.78%.

Which ETF is better, CZAR or BIL?

On 1-year performance, BIL leads with 3.85% vs 2.33% for CZAR. On fees, BIL is cheaper at 0.14% per year. On volatility, BIL has been the lower-risk option at 0.07%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CZAR or BIL?

Over the 1-year period, BIL has performed better with a 3.85% return vs 2.33%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CZAR or BIL?

BIL is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for CZAR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CZAR or BIL?

BIL has the higher dividend yield at 3.85%, compared with 1.52% for CZAR.

What is the main difference between CZAR and BIL?

CZAR is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while BIL is Government Bonds. CZAR tracks Solactive Natural Monopoly Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while BIL tracks Bloomberg 1-3 Month U.S. Treasury Bill Index. They also come from different issuers: Themes and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for CZAR and 0.14% for BIL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (19.37 vs 0.19), 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.