PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
EFR vs. KGC
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends
Financials

Performance

EFR vs. KGC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Eaton Vance Senior Floating-Rate Trust (EFR) and Kinross Gold Corporation (KGC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EFR achieves a -1.99% return, which is significantly lower than KGC's 1.83% return. Over the past 10 years, EFR has underperformed KGC with an annualized return of 5.65%, while KGC has yielded a comparatively higher 20.31% annualized return.


EFR

1D
0.48%
1M
0.93%
YTD
-1.99%
6M
-1.75%
1Y
-3.23%
3Y*
7.57%
5Y*
3.46%
10Y*
5.65%

KGC

1D
1.53%
1M
-0.59%
YTD
1.83%
6M
4.88%
1Y
85.90%
3Y*
82.93%
5Y*
31.43%
10Y*
20.31%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EFR vs. KGC - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
EFR
Eaton Vance Senior Floating-Rate Trust
-1.99%-4.85%11.32%29.25%-18.73%22.88%0.83%16.43%-6.96%3.37%
KGC
Kinross Gold Corporation
1.83%206.11%55.63%51.83%-27.59%-19.00%56.04%46.30%-25.00%38.91%

Correlation

The correlation between EFR and KGC is 0.13, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.13

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.08

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.13

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.06

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 26, 2003

0.09

Fundamentals

Total Revenue (TTM)

EFR:

$93.95M

KGC:

$7.94B

Gross Profit (TTM)

EFR:

$86.69M

KGC:

$4.19B

EBITDA (TTM)

EFR:

$109.68M

KGC:

$5.02B

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

EFR vs. KGC — Risk / Return Rank

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

EFR
EFR Risk / Return Rank: 2525
Overall Rank
EFR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2424
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EFR Sortino Ratio Rank: 2020
Sortino Ratio Rank
EFR Omega Ratio Rank: 2020
Omega Ratio Rank
EFR Calmar Ratio Rank: 3232
Calmar Ratio Rank
EFR Martin Ratio Rank: 3131
Martin Ratio Rank

KGC
KGC Risk / Return Rank: 8181
Overall Rank
KGC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8585
Sharpe Ratio Rank
KGC Sortino Ratio Rank: 7777
Sortino Ratio Rank
KGC Omega Ratio Rank: 7979
Omega Ratio Rank
KGC Calmar Ratio Rank: 8282
Calmar Ratio Rank
KGC Martin Ratio Rank: 8282
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

EFR vs. KGC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Eaton Vance Senior Floating-Rate Trust (EFR) and Kinross Gold Corporation (KGC). 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.


EFRKGCDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-2.13

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-2.62

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

0.93

1.29

-0.36

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

-0.28

2.86

-3.14

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

-0.60

7.46

-8.06

EFR vs. KGC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EFR Sharpe Ratio is -0.40, which is lower than the KGC Sharpe Ratio of 1.73. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EFR and KGC, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


EFRKGCDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

-0.40

1.73

-2.13

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.27

0.72

-0.45

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.38

0.43

-0.06

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.28

0.08

+0.20

Drawdowns

EFR vs. KGC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EFR drawdown since its inception was -60.55%, smaller than the maximum KGC drawdown of -96.00%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EFR and KGC.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


EFRKGCDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-60.55%

-96.00%

+35.45%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-11.49%

-30.20%

+18.71%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-18.30%

-30.20%

+11.90%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-25.07%

-60.46%

+35.39%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-42.04%

-67.75%

+25.71%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-11.02%

-24.68%

+13.66%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-9.01%

-57.63%

+48.62%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

5.40%

11.55%

-6.15%

Volatility

EFR vs. KGC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Eaton Vance Senior Floating-Rate Trust (EFR) is 1.99%, while Kinross Gold Corporation (KGC) has a volatility of 15.76%. This indicates that EFR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than KGC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


EFRKGCDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

1.99%

15.76%

-13.77%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

6.61%

38.78%

-32.17%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

8.06%

49.99%

-41.93%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

13.06%

43.92%

-30.86%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

14.96%

46.89%

-31.93%

Dividends

EFR vs. KGC - Dividend Comparison

EFR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 9.04%, more than KGC's 0.51% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EFR
Eaton Vance Senior Floating-Rate Trust
9.04%9.53%9.76%10.37%10.39%5.62%6.39%7.34%7.46%5.42%5.82%6.95%
KGC
Kinross Gold Corporation
0.51%0.44%1.29%1.98%2.93%2.69%0.82%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Financials

EFR vs. KGC - Financials Comparison

This section allows you to compare key financial metrics between Eaton Vance Senior Floating-Rate Trust and Kinross Gold Corporation. You can select fields from income statements, balance sheets, and cash flow statements to easily visualize and compare the financial health of both companies.


Quarterly
Annual

Total Revenue: Total amount of money received from sales and other business activities


0.00500.00M1.00B1.50B2.00BJulyOctober2022AprilJulyOctober2023AprilJulyOctober2024AprilJulyOctober2025AprilJulyOctober20260
2.37B
(EFR) Total Revenue
(KGC) Total Revenue
Values in USD except per share items

Frequently Asked Questions


EFR and KGC have a correlation of 0.13, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

KGC has higher volatility (15.76%) compared to EFR (1.99%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EFR dropped -60.55% vs KGC's -96.00%.

KGC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.73 vs -0.40), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for EFR and KGC

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer