FCLO vs. RPHS

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

FCLO (Fidelity CLO ETF) and RPHS (Regents Park Hedged Market Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FCLO is a CLO fund actively managed by Fidelity, while RPHS is a Diversified Portfolio fund actively managed by Regents Park. Both are actively managed. At a correlation of -0.04, they often move in opposite directions. FCLO charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for RPHS.

Performance

FCLO vs. RPHS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity CLO ETF (FCLO) and Regents Park Hedged Market Strategy ETF (RPHS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

FCLO

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 0.36%
• YTD: —
• 6M: —
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RPHS

• 1D: -0.40%
• 1M: -1.47%
• YTD: 3.57%
• 6M: 2.56%
• 1Y: 14.06%
• 3Y*: 13.43%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FCLO vs. RPHS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
FCLO Fidelity CLO ETF	1.87%
RPHS Regents Park Hedged Market Strategy ETF	3.36%

Correlation

The correlation between FCLO and RPHS is -0.04, 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 12, 2026	-0.04

Return for Risk

FCLO vs. RPHS — Risk / Return Rank

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

FCLO

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

RPHS

RPHS Risk / Return Rank: 42
RPHS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 41
RPHS Sortino Ratio Rank: 40
RPHS Omega Ratio Rank: 39
RPHS Calmar Ratio Rank: 41
RPHS Martin Ratio Rank: 47

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.

FCLO vs. RPHS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity CLO ETF (FCLO) and Regents Park Hedged Market Strategy ETF (RPHS). 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.

	FCLO	RPHS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	1.30	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	1.84	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.23	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	1.81	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	6.99	—

Drawdowns

FCLO vs. RPHS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FCLO drawdown since its inception was -0.58%, smaller than the maximum RPHS drawdown of -16.51%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FCLO and RPHS.

Drawdown Indicators

	FCLO	RPHS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-0.58%	-16.51%	+15.93%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-7.81%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-10.84%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.06%	-3.45%	+3.39%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.08%	-6.26%	+6.18%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	2.02%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	FCLO	RPHS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	3.91%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	7.85%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.35%	10.92%	-9.57%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	1.35%	11.45%	-10.10%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	1.35%	11.45%	-10.10%

FCLO vs. RPHS - Expense Ratio Comparison

FCLO has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is lower than RPHS's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

FCLO vs. RPHS - Dividend Comparison

FCLO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.56%, less than RPHS's 10.75% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
FCLO Fidelity CLO ETF	1.56%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RPHS Regents Park Hedged Market Strategy ETF	10.75%	11.13%	3.68%	5.23%	1.29%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FCLO and RPHS in my portfolio?

FCLO and RPHS have a correlation of -0.04, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, FCLO or RPHS?

On fees, FCLO is cheaper at 0.45% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, FCLO or RPHS?

FCLO is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for RPHS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FCLO or RPHS?

RPHS has the higher dividend yield at 10.75%, compared with 1.56% for FCLO.

What is the main difference between FCLO and RPHS?

FCLO is categorized as CLO, while RPHS is Diversified Portfolio. They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and Regents Park. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for FCLO and 0.75% for RPHS.