PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
FCA vs. BIL
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

FCA vs. BIL

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

FCA (First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund) and BIL (SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FCA is a China Equities fund tracking the NASDAQ AlphaDEX China Index, while BIL is a Government Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg 1-3 Month U.S. Treasury Bill Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, FCA returned 9.89%/yr vs 2.18%/yr for BIL. At a 0.03 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FCA charges 0.80%/yr vs 0.14%/yr for BIL.

Performance

FCA vs. BIL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund (FCA) and SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF (BIL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FCA achieves a 11.53% return, which is significantly higher than BIL's 1.46% return. Over the past 10 years, FCA has outperformed BIL with an annualized return of 9.89%, while BIL has yielded a comparatively lower 2.18% annualized return.

FCA

1D
2.01%
1M
-4.08%
YTD
11.53%
6M
9.85%
1Y
44.90%
3Y*
20.06%
5Y*
5.02%
10Y*
9.89%

BIL

1D
-0.01%
1M
0.28%
YTD
1.46%
6M
1.76%
1Y
3.87%
3Y*
4.63%
5Y*
3.41%
10Y*
2.18%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FCA vs. BIL - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
FCA
First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund		11.53%45.20%14.07%-8.28%-17.61%-0.65%11.80%18.72%-18.30%60.26%
BIL
SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF		1.46%4.15%5.19%4.94%1.40%-0.10%0.40%2.03%1.74%0.69%

Correlation

The correlation between FCA and BIL is -0.17, 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

-0.17

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

-0.05

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

-0.01

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

0.01

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 25, 2011

0.03

The correlation between FCA and BIL shifts across timeframes, from -0.17 (1 year) to 0.03 (all time), 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.

First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund

SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF

Often compared with FCA:
FCA vs. KGRNFCA vs. KLIPFCA vs. SPYFCA vs. YINNFCA vs. SMINFCA vs. DIVOFCA vs. CNYA
Often compared with BIL:
BIL vs. SGOVBIL vs. SHVBIL vs. SPAXXBIL vs. VBILBIL vs. TFLOBIL vs. TBILBIL vs. SHY

Return for Risk

FCA vs. BIL — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
FCA
FCA Risk / Return Rank: 6262
Overall Rank
FCA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5959
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FCA Sortino Ratio Rank: 5353
Sortino Ratio Rank
FCA Omega Ratio Rank: 5555
Omega Ratio Rank
FCA Calmar Ratio Rank: 8080
Calmar Ratio Rank
FCA Martin Ratio Rank: 6565
Martin Ratio Rank
BIL
BIL Risk / Return Rank: 100100
Overall Rank
BIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100100
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 100100
Sortino Ratio Rank
BIL Omega Ratio Rank: 100100
Omega Ratio Rank
BIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 100100
Calmar Ratio Rank
BIL Martin Ratio Rank: 100100
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.

FCA vs. BIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund (FCA) and SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF (BIL). 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.

FCABILDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

2.02

19.71

-17.68

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

2.58

174.16

-171.58

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.34

87.91

-86.57

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

4.19

355.62

-351.43

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

12.06

2,825.49

-2,813.44

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FCA vs. BIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FCA Sharpe Ratio is 2.02, which is lower than the BIL Sharpe Ratio of 19.71. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FCA and BIL, 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

FCABILDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.02

19.71

-17.68

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.18

13.15

-12.97

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.37

8.52

-8.14

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.13

2.77

-2.64

Drawdowns

FCA vs. BIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FCA drawdown since its inception was -45.56%, which is greater than BIL's maximum drawdown of -0.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FCA and BIL.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

FCABILDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-45.56%

-0.78%

-44.78%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-11.13%

-0.01%

-11.12%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-26.13%

-0.01%

-26.12%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-42.47%

-0.10%

-42.37%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-42.47%

-0.21%

-42.26%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-8.87%

-0.01%

-8.86%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-21.62%

-0.26%

-21.36%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.87%

0.00%

+3.87%

Volatility

FCA vs. BIL - Volatility Comparison

First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund (FCA) has a higher volatility of 8.36% compared to SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF (BIL) at 0.05%. This indicates that FCA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BIL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

FCABILDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

8.36%

0.05%

+8.31%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

16.57%

0.13%

+16.44%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

22.31%

0.20%

+22.11%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

27.59%

0.26%

+27.33%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

26.63%

0.26%

+26.37%

FCA vs. BIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

FCA has a 0.80% expense ratio, which is higher than BIL's 0.14% expense ratio.

Dividends

FCA vs. BIL - Dividend Comparison

FCA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.31%, less than BIL's 3.86% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
BIL
SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF		3.86%4.13%5.03%4.92%1.35%0.00%0.30%2.05%1.66%0.68%0.07%0.00%
FCA
First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund		2.31%2.67%5.17%5.70%6.00%4.91%4.12%3.73%3.10%2.30%2.51%4.13%

Frequently Asked Questions

FCA and BIL have a correlation of -0.17, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

FCA has higher volatility (8.36%) compared to BIL (0.05%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FCA dropped -45.56% vs BIL's -0.78%.

On 10-year performance, FCA leads with 9.89% vs 2.18% for BIL. On fees, BIL is cheaper at 0.14% per year. On volatility, BIL has been the lower-risk option at 0.05%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, FCA has performed better with a 9.89% return vs 2.18%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

BIL is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for FCA.

BIL has the higher dividend yield at 3.86%, compared with 2.31% for FCA.

FCA is categorized as China Equities, while BIL is Government Bonds. FCA tracks NASDAQ AlphaDEX China Index, while BIL tracks Bloomberg 1-3 Month U.S. Treasury Bill Index. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.80% for FCA and 0.14% for BIL.

BIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (19.71 vs 2.02), 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 FCA and BIL

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