FRDM vs. MINT

Last updated Jun 15, 2026

FRDM (Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF) and MINT (PIMCO Enhanced Short Maturity Active ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FRDM is a Emerging Markets Diversified fund tracking the Life + Liberty Freedom 100 Emerging Markets Index, while MINT is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by PIMCO. FRDM is passively managed, while MINT is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, FRDM returned 18.68%/yr vs 3.49%/yr for MINT. At a 0.09 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FRDM charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.36%/yr for MINT.

Performance

FRDM vs. MINT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF (FRDM) and PIMCO Enhanced Short Maturity Active ETF (MINT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FRDM achieves a 40.13% return, which is significantly higher than MINT's 1.94% return.

FRDM

• 1D: 0.49%
• 1M: 9.04%
• YTD: 40.13%
• 6M: 46.37%
• 1Y: 87.32%
• 3Y*: 34.29%
• 5Y*: 18.68%
• 10Y*: —

MINT

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: 0.35%
• YTD: 1.94%
• 6M: 2.19%
• 1Y: 4.67%
• 3Y*: 5.40%
• 5Y*: 3.49%
• 10Y*: 2.72%

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

FRDM vs. MINT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
FRDM Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF	40.13%	61.27%	1.70%	22.77%	-14.45%	6.13%	16.90%	12.23%
MINT PIMCO Enhanced Short Maturity Active ETF	1.94%	4.74%	5.94%	6.26%	-1.01%	-0.03%	1.62%	1.71%

Correlation

The correlation between FRDM and MINT is -0.01, 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	-0.01
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.02
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.10
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 23, 2019	0.09

The correlation between FRDM and MINT shifts across timeframes, from -0.01 (1 year) to 0.10 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

FRDM vs. MINT — Risk / Return Rank

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

FRDM

FRDM Risk / Return Rank: 92
FRDM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
FRDM Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
FRDM Omega Ratio Rank: 92
FRDM Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
FRDM Martin Ratio Rank: 91

MINT

MINT Risk / Return Rank: 100
MINT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
MINT Sortino Ratio Rank: 100
MINT Omega Ratio Rank: 100
MINT Calmar Ratio Rank: 100
MINT 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.

FRDM vs. MINT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF (FRDM) and PIMCO Enhanced Short Maturity Active ETF (MINT). 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.

	FRDM	MINT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.15	17.51	-14.36
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.68	66.94	-63.26
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.54	21.62	-20.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.02	95.35	-90.33
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	19.36	965.15	-945.79

FRDM vs. MINT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FRDM Sharpe Ratio is 3.15, which is lower than the MINT Sharpe Ratio of 17.51. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FRDM and MINT, 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

FRDM vs. MINT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FRDM drawdown since its inception was -40.49%, which is greater than MINT's maximum drawdown of -4.62%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FRDM and MINT.

Drawdown Indicators

	FRDM	MINT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-40.49%	-4.62%	-35.87%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.87%	-0.05%	-16.82%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.87%	-0.16%	-16.71%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-29.25%	-2.42%	-26.83%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-4.62%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.36%	0.00%	-4.36%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.09%	-0.17%	-6.92%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.37%	0.00%	+4.37%

Volatility

FRDM vs. MINT - Volatility Comparison

Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF (FRDM) has a higher volatility of 14.27% compared to PIMCO Enhanced Short Maturity Active ETF (MINT) at 0.09%. This indicates that FRDM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MINT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FRDM	MINT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	14.27%	0.09%	+14.18%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	24.39%	0.20%	+24.19%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.86%	0.27%	+26.59%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.35%	0.58%	+20.77%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.09%	0.95%	+22.14%

FRDM vs. MINT - Expense Ratio Comparison

FRDM has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is higher than MINT's 0.36% expense ratio.

Dividends

FRDM vs. MINT - Dividend Comparison

FRDM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.56%, less than MINT's 4.28% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FRDM Freedom 100 Emerging Markets ETF	1.56%	2.26%	2.53%	2.66%	2.72%	2.17%	1.11%	1.07%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
MINT PIMCO Enhanced Short Maturity Active ETF	4.28%	4.63%	5.22%	4.91%	1.90%	0.44%	1.15%	2.65%	2.32%	1.61%	1.35%	0.88%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FRDM and MINT in my portfolio?

FRDM and MINT have a correlation of -0.01, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FRDM or MINT?

FRDM has higher volatility (14.27%) compared to MINT (0.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FRDM dropped -40.49% vs MINT's -4.62%.

Which ETF is better, FRDM or MINT?

On 5-year performance, FRDM leads with 18.68% vs 3.49% for MINT. On fees, MINT is cheaper at 0.36% per year. On volatility, MINT has been the lower-risk option at 0.09%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FRDM or MINT?

Over the 5-year period, FRDM has performed better with a 18.68% return vs 3.49%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FRDM or MINT?

MINT is cheaper with a 0.36% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for FRDM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FRDM or MINT?

MINT has the higher dividend yield at 4.28%, compared with 1.56% for FRDM.

What is the main difference between FRDM and MINT?

FRDM is categorized as Emerging Markets Diversified, while MINT is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: Freedom Funds and PIMCO. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for FRDM and 0.36% for MINT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MINT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (17.51 vs 3.15), 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.