EZET vs. RBIL

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

EZET (Franklin Ethereum ETF) and RBIL (F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EZET is a Cryptocurrency fund tracking the CME CF Ether-Dollar Reference Rate - New York Variant, 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, EZET returned -31.70% vs 4.57% for RBIL. At a correlation of -0.10, they often move in opposite directions. EZET charges 0.19%/yr vs 0.17%/yr for RBIL.

Performance

EZET vs. RBIL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Franklin Ethereum ETF (EZET) 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, EZET achieves a -39.43% return, which is significantly lower than RBIL's 2.70% return.

EZET

• 1D: -5.67%
• 1M: -23.67%
• YTD: -39.43%
• 6M: -42.74%
• 1Y: -31.70%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RBIL

• 1D: 0.06%
• 1M: 0.38%
• YTD: 2.70%
• 6M: 2.79%
• 1Y: 4.57%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

EZET vs. RBIL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
EZET Franklin Ethereum ETF	-39.43%	19.22%
RBIL F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF	2.70%	2.91%

Correlation

The correlation between EZET and RBIL 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 Feb 26, 2025	-0.10

Return for Risk

EZET vs. RBIL — Risk / Return Rank

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

EZET

EZET Risk / Return Rank: 5
EZET Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5
EZET Sortino Ratio Rank: 6
EZET Omega Ratio Rank: 6
EZET Calmar Ratio Rank: 5
EZET Martin Ratio Rank: 5

RBIL

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

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.

EZET vs. RBIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin Ethereum ETF (EZET) 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.

	EZET	RBIL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.47	5.01	-5.48
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.32	7.92	-8.23
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.97	2.39	-1.42
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.51	17.00	-17.50
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.84	70.66	-71.50
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EZET vs. RBIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EZET Sharpe Ratio is -0.47, which is lower than the RBIL Sharpe Ratio of 5.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EZET 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	EZET	RBIL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.47	5.01	-5.48
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.41	4.28	-4.69

Drawdowns

EZET vs. RBIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EZET drawdown since its inception was -64.05%, which is greater than RBIL's maximum drawdown of -0.50%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EZET and RBIL.

Drawdown Indicators

	EZET	RBIL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-64.05%	-0.50%	-63.55%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-62.87%	-0.27%	-62.60%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-62.87%	0.00%	-62.87%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-32.67%	-0.06%	-32.61%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	37.73%	0.07%	+37.66%

Volatility

EZET vs. RBIL - Volatility Comparison

Franklin Ethereum ETF (EZET) has a higher volatility of 9.88% compared to F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL) at 0.30%. This indicates that EZET'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

	EZET	RBIL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.88%	0.30%	+9.58%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	46.05%	0.79%	+45.26%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	68.43%	0.92%	+67.51%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	72.37%	1.05%	+71.32%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	72.37%	1.05%	+71.32%

EZET vs. RBIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

EZET has a 0.19% expense ratio, which is higher than RBIL's 0.17% 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

EZET vs. RBIL - Dividend Comparison

EZET has not paid dividends to shareholders, while RBIL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.60%.

Position	TTM	2025
EZET Franklin Ethereum ETF	0.00%	0.00%
RBIL F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF	4.60%	3.65%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EZET and RBIL in my portfolio?

EZET and RBIL 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, EZET or RBIL?

EZET has higher volatility (9.88%) compared to RBIL (0.30%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EZET dropped -64.05% vs RBIL's -0.50%.

Which ETF is better, EZET or RBIL?

On 1-year performance, RBIL leads with 4.57% vs -31.70% for EZET. On fees, RBIL is cheaper at 0.17% per year. On volatility, RBIL has been the lower-risk option at 0.30%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EZET or RBIL?

Over the 1-year period, RBIL has performed better with a 4.57% return vs -31.70%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EZET or RBIL?

RBIL is cheaper with a 0.17% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for EZET.

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

RBIL has the higher dividend yield at 4.60%, compared with 0.00% for EZET.

What is the main difference between EZET and RBIL?

EZET is categorized as Cryptocurrency, while RBIL is Inflation-Protected Bonds. EZET tracks CME CF Ether-Dollar Reference Rate - New York Variant, while RBIL tracks Bloomberg US Ultrashort TIPS 1-13 Months Index. They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and F/m. Their fees differ too: 0.19% for EZET and 0.17% for RBIL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RBIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (5.01 vs -0.47), 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.