EFT vs. BGT

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

EFT (Eaton Vance Floating-Rate Income Trust) is a stock, while BGT (BlackRock Floating Rate Income Trust) is Bank Loan fund managed by BlackRock. Over the past 10 years, EFT returned 5.19%/yr vs 6.41%/yr for BGT. Their 0.48 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship.

Performance

EFT vs. BGT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Eaton Vance Floating-Rate Income Trust (EFT) and BlackRock Floating Rate Income Trust (BGT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EFT achieves a -1.58% return, which is significantly lower than BGT's 2.82% return. Over the past 10 years, EFT has underperformed BGT with an annualized return of 5.19%, while BGT has yielded a comparatively higher 6.41% annualized return.

EFT

• 1D: 0.47%
• 1M: -0.32%
• 6M: -2.53%
• YTD: -1.58%
• 1Y: -5.34%
• 3Y*: 5.54%
• 5Y*: 2.96%
• 10Y*: 5.19%
• ALL TIME*: 4.59%

BGT

• 1D: -0.37%
• 1M: 2.55%
• 6M: 0.60%
• YTD: 2.82%
• 1Y: -3.45%
• 3Y*: 8.64%
• 5Y*: 6.69%
• 10Y*: 6.41%
• ALL TIME*: 5.38%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
BGT BlackRock Floating Rate Income Trust	$1.54M	$1.32M	$1.16M
EFT Eaton Vance Floating-Rate Income Trust	$756.55K	$613.03K	$760.70K

EFT vs. BGT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
EFT Eaton Vance Floating-Rate Income Trust	-1.58%	-3.77%	13.17%	27.14%	-19.69%	21.00%	2.41%	16.85%	-6.14%	1.63%
BGT BlackRock Floating Rate Income Trust	2.82%	-0.84%	16.12%	26.29%	-16.57%	25.89%	-0.81%	18.97%	-11.95%	3.91%

Correlation

The correlation between EFT and BGT is 0.47, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.47
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.41
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.49
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.	0.49
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 30, 2004	0.48

Return for Risk

EFT vs. BGT — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

EFT

EFT Risk / Return Rank: 17
EFT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 16
EFT Sortino Ratio Rank: 14
EFT Omega Ratio Rank: 15
EFT Calmar Ratio Rank: 25
EFT Martin Ratio Rank: 15

BGT

BGT Risk / Return Rank: 2
BGT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2
BGT Sortino Ratio Rank: 1
BGT Omega Ratio Rank: 2
BGT Calmar Ratio Rank: 2
BGT Martin Ratio Rank: 2

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

EFT vs. BGT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Eaton Vance Floating-Rate Income Trust (EFT) and BlackRock Floating Rate Income Trust (BGT). 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.

	EFT	BGT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.62	-0.35	-0.27
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.87	-0.43	-0.44
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.90	0.95	-0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.52	-0.32	-0.20
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-1.18	-0.65	-0.53

EFT vs. BGT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EFT Sharpe Ratio is -0.62, which is lower than the BGT Sharpe Ratio of -0.35. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EFT and BGT, 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

EFT vs. BGT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EFT drawdown since its inception was -60.58%, roughly equal to the maximum BGT drawdown of -58.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EFT and BGT.

Drawdown Indicators

	EFT	BGT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-60.58%	-58.06%	-2.52%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.32%	-10.93%	+0.61%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.49%	-15.91%	-1.58%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.98%	-23.19%	-1.79%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-45.51%	-41.90%	-3.61%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.33%	-3.45%	-6.88%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.82%	-8.10%	-0.72%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.72%	5.41%	-0.69%

Volatility

EFT vs. BGT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Eaton Vance Floating-Rate Income Trust (EFT) is 1.45%, while BlackRock Floating Rate Income Trust (BGT) has a volatility of 3.12%. This indicates that EFT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BGT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EFT	BGT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.45%	3.12%	-1.67%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.15%	7.44%	-0.29%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	8.66%	9.97%	-1.31%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.72%	13.60%	-0.88%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.72%	15.35%	+0.37%

Dividends

EFT vs. BGT - Dividend Comparison

EFT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 8.87%, less than BGT's 13.38% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BGT BlackRock Floating Rate Income Trust	13.38%	12.74%	11.22%	10.36%	6.87%	5.55%	7.58%	6.33%	6.64%	5.03%	5.03%	6.04%
EFT Eaton Vance Floating-Rate Income Trust	8.87%	9.55%	10.52%	11.09%	9.81%	5.24%	5.88%	7.41%	6.77%	5.73%	5.54%	6.57%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EFT and BGT in my portfolio?

EFT and BGT have a correlation of 0.47, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EFT or BGT?

BGT has higher volatility (3.12%) compared to EFT (1.45%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EFT dropped -60.58% vs BGT's -58.06%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BGT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (-0.35 vs -0.62), 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.