FCA vs. BILZ

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FCA (First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund) and BILZ (PIMCO Ultra Short Government Active Exchange-Traded Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - FCA is a China Equities fund tracking the NASDAQ AlphaDEX China Index, while BILZ is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by PIMCO. FCA is passively managed, while BILZ is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, FCA returned 19.12%/yr vs 4.68%/yr for BILZ. At a correlation of -0.06, they often move in opposite directions. FCA charges 0.80%/yr vs 0.14%/yr for BILZ.

Performance

FCA vs. BILZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund (FCA) and PIMCO Ultra Short Government Active Exchange-Traded Fund (BILZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FCA achieves a 3.82% return, which is significantly higher than BILZ's 1.66% return.

FCA

• 1D: -2.20%
• 1M: -6.29%
• YTD: 3.82%
• 6M: 2.03%
• 1Y: 28.89%
• 3Y*: 19.12%
• 5Y*: 3.23%
• 10Y*: 9.27%

BILZ

• 1D: 0.01%
• 1M: 0.26%
• YTD: 1.66%
• 6M: 1.76%
• 1Y: 3.88%
• 3Y*: 4.68%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FCA vs. BILZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FCA First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund	3.82%	45.20%	14.07%	-4.90%
BILZ PIMCO Ultra Short Government Active Exchange-Traded Fund	1.66%	4.21%	5.25%	2.87%

Correlation

The correlation between FCA and BILZ is -0.11, 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	-0.11
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.06
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 22, 2023	-0.06

Return for Risk

FCA vs. BILZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

FCA

FCA Risk / Return Rank: 37
FCA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
FCA Sortino Ratio Rank: 35
FCA Omega Ratio Rank: 35
FCA Calmar Ratio Rank: 38
FCA Martin Ratio Rank: 40

BILZ

BILZ Risk / Return Rank: 100
BILZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
BILZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 100
BILZ Omega Ratio Rank: 100
BILZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 100
BILZ Martin Ratio Rank: 100

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. BILZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund (FCA) and PIMCO Ultra Short Government Active Exchange-Traded Fund (BILZ). 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.

	FCA	BILZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.26	18.68	-17.42
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.74	118.53	-116.80
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	47.37	-46.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.81	197.18	-195.38
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.93	1,895.58	-1,889.65

FCA vs. BILZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FCA Sharpe Ratio is 1.26, which is lower than the BILZ Sharpe Ratio of 18.68. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FCA and BILZ, 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

FCA vs. BILZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FCA drawdown since its inception was -45.56%, which is greater than BILZ's maximum drawdown of -0.52%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FCA and BILZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	FCA	BILZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-45.56%	-0.52%	-45.04%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.07%	-0.02%	-16.05%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.13%	-0.17%	-25.96%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-42.47%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-42.47%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-15.17%	0.00%	-15.17%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-21.61%	-0.01%	-21.60%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.88%	0.00%	+4.88%

Volatility

FCA vs. BILZ - Volatility Comparison

First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund (FCA) has a higher volatility of 7.95% compared to PIMCO Ultra Short Government Active Exchange-Traded Fund (BILZ) at 0.07%. This indicates that FCA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BILZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FCA	BILZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.95%	0.07%	+7.88%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	17.58%	0.14%	+17.44%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	23.00%	0.21%	+22.79%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	27.72%	0.52%	+27.20%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	26.69%	0.52%	+26.17%

FCA vs. BILZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

FCA vs. BILZ - Dividend Comparison

FCA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.48%, less than BILZ's 4.06% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BILZ PIMCO Ultra Short Government Active Exchange-Traded Fund	4.06%	4.19%	4.95%	2.23%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FCA First Trust China AlphaDEX Fund	2.48%	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

Can I hold both FCA and BILZ in my portfolio?

FCA and BILZ have a correlation of -0.11, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FCA or BILZ?

FCA has higher volatility (7.95%) compared to BILZ (0.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FCA dropped -45.56% vs BILZ's -0.52%.

Which ETF is better, FCA or BILZ?

On 3-year performance, FCA leads with 19.12% vs 4.68% for BILZ. On fees, BILZ is cheaper at 0.14% per year. On volatility, BILZ has been the lower-risk option at 0.07%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FCA or BILZ?

Over the 3-year period, FCA has performed better with a 19.12% return vs 4.68%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FCA or BILZ?

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

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FCA or BILZ?

BILZ has the higher dividend yield at 4.06%, compared with 2.48% for FCA.

What is the main difference between FCA and BILZ?

FCA is categorized as China Equities, while BILZ is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and PIMCO. Their fees differ too: 0.80% for FCA and 0.14% for BILZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BILZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (18.68 vs 1.26), 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.