EMNT vs. FLTR
EMNT (PIMCO Enhanced Short Maturity Active ESG ETF) and FLTR (VanEck Vectors Investment Grade Floating Rate ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EMNT is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by PIMCO, while FLTR is a Corporate Bonds fund tracking the MVIS US Investment Grade Floating Rate Index. EMNT is actively managed, while FLTR is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, EMNT returned 3.45%/yr vs 4.51%/yr for FLTR. At a 0.08 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EMNT charges 0.24%/yr vs 0.14%/yr for FLTR.
Performance
EMNT vs. FLTR - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, EMNT achieves a 1.74% return, which is significantly lower than FLTR's 2.07% return.
EMNT
- 1D
- 0.04%
- 1M
- 0.28%
- YTD
- 1.74%
- 6M
- 1.98%
- 1Y
- 4.37%
- 3Y*
- 5.23%
- 5Y*
- 3.45%
- 10Y*
- —
FLTR
- 1D
- 0.08%
- 1M
- 0.50%
- YTD
- 2.07%
- 6M
- 2.40%
- 1Y
- 5.34%
- 3Y*
- 6.12%
- 5Y*
- 4.51%
- 10Y*
- 3.52%
EMNT vs. FLTR - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EMNT PIMCO Enhanced Short Maturity Active ESG ETF | 1.74% | 4.74% | 5.79% | 5.84% | -0.57% | 0.11% | 2.08% | 0.06% |
FLTR VanEck Vectors Investment Grade Floating Rate ETF | 2.07% | 5.22% | 7.38% | 7.41% | 0.74% | 0.55% | 1.44% | 0.25% |
Correlation
The correlation between EMNT and FLTR is 0.20, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.20 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.12 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.09 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 12, 2019 | 0.08 |
The correlation between EMNT and FLTR shifts across timeframes, from 0.08 (all time) to 0.20 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
EMNT vs. FLTR — Risk / Return Rank
EMNT
FLTR
EMNT vs. FLTR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PIMCO Enhanced Short Maturity Active ESG ETF (EMNT) and VanEck Vectors Investment Grade Floating Rate ETF (FLTR). 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.
| EMNT | FLTR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +3.72 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +7.98 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 5.50 | 3.20 | +2.30 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 33.41 | 17.09 | +16.32 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 233.91 | 102.12 | +131.79 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
EMNT vs. FLTR - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum EMNT drawdown since its inception was -2.28%, smaller than the maximum FLTR drawdown of -17.84%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMNT and FLTR.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| EMNT | FLTR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -2.28% | -17.84% | +15.56% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -0.13% | -0.31% | +0.18% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -0.73% | -1.93% | +1.20% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -1.70% | -3.06% | +1.36% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -17.84% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.23% | -0.67% | +0.44% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.02% | 0.05% | -0.03% |
Volatility
EMNT vs. FLTR - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for PIMCO Enhanced Short Maturity Active ESG ETF (EMNT) is 0.12%, while VanEck Vectors Investment Grade Floating Rate ETF (FLTR) has a volatility of 0.25%. This indicates that EMNT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FLTR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| EMNT | FLTR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.12% | 0.25% | -0.13% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 0.35% | 0.62% | -0.27% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.41% | 0.78% | -0.37% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 0.83% | 2.13% | -1.30% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 0.86% | 5.00% | -4.14% |
EMNT vs. FLTR - Expense Ratio Comparison
EMNT has a 0.24% expense ratio, which is higher than FLTR's 0.14% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
EMNT vs. FLTR - Dividend Comparison
EMNT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.00%, less than FLTR's 4.72% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EMNT PIMCO Enhanced Short Maturity Active ESG ETF | 4.00% | 4.46% | 5.14% | 4.62% | 2.79% | 0.66% | 1.44% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
FLTR VanEck Vectors Investment Grade Floating Rate ETF | 4.72% | 4.97% | 5.93% | 6.07% | 2.29% | 0.63% | 1.49% | 3.05% | 2.67% | 1.69% | 1.16% | 0.71% |
Frequently Asked Questions
EMNT and FLTR have a correlation of 0.20, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
FLTR has higher volatility (0.25%) compared to EMNT (0.12%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMNT dropped -2.28% vs FLTR's -17.84%.
On 5-year performance, FLTR leads with 4.51% vs 3.45% for EMNT. On fees, FLTR is cheaper at 0.14% per year. On volatility, EMNT has been the lower-risk option at 0.12%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, FLTR has performed better with a 4.51% return vs 3.45%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
FLTR is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.24% for EMNT.
FLTR has the higher dividend yield at 4.72%, compared with 4.00% for EMNT.
EMNT is categorized as Ultrashort Bond, while FLTR is Corporate Bonds. They also come from different issuers: PIMCO and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.24% for EMNT and 0.14% for FLTR.
EMNT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (10.59 vs 6.88), 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.
Find the right allocation for EMNT and FLTR
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