EAFG vs. RBIL

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

EAFG (Pacer Developed Markets Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF) and RBIL (F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EAFG is a Foreign Large Cap Equities fund tracking the Pacer Developed Markets Cash Cows Growth Leaders 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, EAFG returned 24.38% vs 4.07% for RBIL. At a correlation of -0.22, they often move in opposite directions. EAFG charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.17%/yr for RBIL.

Performance

EAFG vs. RBIL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Pacer Developed Markets Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (EAFG) 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, EAFG achieves a 11.36% return, which is significantly higher than RBIL's 2.32% return.

EAFG

• 1D: -3.66%
• 1M: 1.71%
• YTD: 11.36%
• 6M: 10.83%
• 1Y: 24.38%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RBIL

• 1D: 0.01%
• 1M: -0.19%
• YTD: 2.32%
• 6M: 2.37%
• 1Y: 4.07%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

EAFG vs. RBIL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
EAFG Pacer Developed Markets Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF	11.36%	17.36%
RBIL F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF	2.32%	2.85%

Correlation

The correlation between EAFG 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 25, 2025	-0.22

Return for Risk

EAFG vs. RBIL — Risk / Return Rank

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

EAFG

EAFG Risk / Return Rank: 41
EAFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 41
EAFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
EAFG Omega Ratio Rank: 39
EAFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 42
EAFG Martin Ratio Rank: 46

RBIL

RBIL Risk / Return Rank: 97
RBIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
RBIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
RBIL Omega Ratio Rank: 98
RBIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
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.

EAFG vs. RBIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Pacer Developed Markets Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (EAFG) 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.

	EAFG	RBIL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.33	4.35	-3.02
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.85	6.69	-4.84
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	2.13	-0.89
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.93	7.82	-5.90
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.06	42.95	-35.89

EAFG vs. RBIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EAFG Sharpe Ratio is 1.33, which is lower than the RBIL Sharpe Ratio of 4.35. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EAFG 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

EAFG vs. RBIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EAFG drawdown since its inception was -16.47%, which is greater than RBIL's maximum drawdown of -0.52%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EAFG and RBIL.

Drawdown Indicators

	EAFG	RBIL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.47%	-0.52%	-15.95%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.71%	-0.52%	-12.19%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.66%	-0.50%	-3.16%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.16%	-0.07%	-3.09%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.46%	0.10%	+3.36%

Volatility

EAFG vs. RBIL - Volatility Comparison

Pacer Developed Markets Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (EAFG) has a higher volatility of 7.56% compared to F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL) at 0.36%. This indicates that EAFG'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

	EAFG	RBIL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.56%	0.36%	+7.20%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.20%	0.85%	+15.35%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.51%	0.95%	+17.56%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.69%	1.07%	+16.62%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.69%	1.07%	+16.62%

EAFG vs. RBIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

EAFG has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than RBIL's 0.17% expense ratio.

Dividends

EAFG vs. RBIL - Dividend Comparison

EAFG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.96%, less than RBIL's 4.38% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
EAFG Pacer Developed Markets Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF	1.96%	1.31%	1.99%
RBIL F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF	4.38%	3.65%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EAFG and RBIL in my portfolio?

EAFG 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, EAFG or RBIL?

EAFG has higher volatility (7.56%) compared to RBIL (0.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EAFG dropped -16.47% vs RBIL's -0.52%.

Which ETF is better, EAFG or RBIL?

On 1-year performance, EAFG leads with 24.38% vs 4.07% 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, EAFG or RBIL?

Over the 1-year period, EAFG has performed better with a 24.38% return vs 4.07%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EAFG or RBIL?

RBIL is cheaper with a 0.17% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for EAFG.

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

RBIL has the higher dividend yield at 4.38%, compared with 1.96% for EAFG.

What is the main difference between EAFG and RBIL?

EAFG is categorized as Foreign Large Cap Equities, while RBIL is Inflation-Protected Bonds. EAFG tracks Pacer Developed Markets Cash Cows Growth Leaders Index, while RBIL tracks Bloomberg US Ultrashort TIPS 1-13 Months Index. They also come from different issuers: Pacer and F/m. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for EAFG and 0.17% for RBIL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RBIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.35 vs 1.33), 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.