FLRT vs. SLNZ

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

FLRT (Pacer Aristotle Pacific Floating Rate High Income ETF) and SLNZ (TCW Senior Loan ETF) are both Bank Loan funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, FLRT returned 5.13% vs 4.82% for SLNZ. Their 0.09 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. FLRT charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for SLNZ.

Performance

FLRT vs. SLNZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Pacer Aristotle Pacific Floating Rate High Income ETF (FLRT) and TCW Senior Loan ETF (SLNZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLRT achieves a 2.44% return, which is significantly lower than SLNZ's 2.65% return.

FLRT

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: 0.42%
• 6M: 1.88%
• YTD: 2.44%
• 1Y: 5.13%
• 3Y*: 7.90%
• 5Y*: 6.08%
• 10Y*: 4.77%
• ALL TIME*: 4.48%

SLNZ

• 1D: 0.15%
• 1M: 0.68%
• 6M: 2.53%
• YTD: 2.65%
• 1Y: 4.82%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 5.19%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
FLRT Pacer Aristotle Pacific Floating Rate High Income ETF	$4.79M	$4.57M	$4.68M
SLNZ TCW Senior Loan ETF	$171.84K	$98.00K	$256.92K

FLRT vs. SLNZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FLRT Pacer Aristotle Pacific Floating Rate High Income ETF	2.44%	6.24%	0.98%
SLNZ TCW Senior Loan ETF	2.65%	5.21%	0.94%

Correlation

The correlation between FLRT and SLNZ is 0.04, meaning there was essentially no consistent relationship between their historical price movements. Each responded to its own set of market drivers.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.04
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 18, 2024	0.09

Return for Risk

FLRT vs. SLNZ — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

FLRT

FLRT Risk / Return Rank: 90
FLRT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 97
FLRT Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
FLRT Omega Ratio Rank: 97
FLRT Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
FLRT Martin Ratio Rank: 79

SLNZ

SLNZ Risk / Return Rank: 44
SLNZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 41
SLNZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 37
SLNZ Omega Ratio Rank: 45
SLNZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 49
SLNZ Martin Ratio Rank: 48

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

FLRT vs. SLNZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Pacer Aristotle Pacific Floating Rate High Income ETF (FLRT) and TCW Senior Loan ETF (SLNZ). 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.

	FLRT	SLNZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.46	1.11	+2.35
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	5.17	1.48	+3.68
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.76	1.22	+0.54
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.90	1.88	+1.01
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.63	5.89	+4.74

FLRT vs. SLNZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLRT Sharpe Ratio is 3.46, which is higher than the SLNZ Sharpe Ratio of 1.11. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLRT and SLNZ, 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

FLRT vs. SLNZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLRT drawdown since its inception was -20.96%, which is greater than SLNZ's maximum drawdown of -2.57%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLRT and SLNZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLRT	SLNZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.96%	-2.57%	-18.39%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.78%	-2.57%	+0.79%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-2.87%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-7.60%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-20.96%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.39%	-0.42%	-0.97%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.48%	0.82%	-0.34%

Volatility

FLRT vs. SLNZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Pacer Aristotle Pacific Floating Rate High Income ETF (FLRT) is 0.29%, while TCW Senior Loan ETF (SLNZ) has a volatility of 0.37%. This indicates that FLRT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SLNZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLRT	SLNZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.29%	0.37%	-0.08%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.19%	3.35%	-2.16%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.49%	4.36%	-2.87%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	2.30%	4.13%	-1.83%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.09%	4.13%	+1.96%

FLRT vs. SLNZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLRT has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than SLNZ's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLRT vs. SLNZ - Dividend Comparison

FLRT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.71%, less than SLNZ's 7.46% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FLRT Pacer Aristotle Pacific Floating Rate High Income ETF	6.71%	6.93%	7.93%	8.40%	5.81%	3.16%	3.52%	4.30%	3.95%	3.20%	3.38%	3.21%
SLNZ TCW Senior Loan ETF	7.46%	7.39%	1.39%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLRT and SLNZ in my portfolio?

FLRT and SLNZ 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 is riskier, FLRT or SLNZ?

SLNZ has higher volatility (0.37%) compared to FLRT (0.29%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLRT dropped -20.96% vs SLNZ's -2.57%.

Which ETF is better, FLRT or SLNZ?

On 1-year performance, FLRT leads with 5.13% vs 4.82% for SLNZ. On fees, FLRT is cheaper at 0.60% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLRT or SLNZ?

Over the 1-year period, FLRT has performed better with a 5.13% return vs 4.82%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLRT or SLNZ?

FLRT is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for SLNZ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FLRT or SLNZ?

SLNZ has the higher dividend yield at 7.46%, compared with 6.71% for FLRT.

What is the main difference between FLRT and SLNZ?

They also come from different issuers: Pacer and TCW. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for FLRT and 0.65% for SLNZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLRT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.46 vs 1.11), 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.