GLRBX vs. FPACX

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

GLRBX (James Balanced: Golden Rainbow Fund) and FPACX (FPA Crescent Fund) are both Diversified Portfolio funds. Over the past 10 years, GLRBX returned 5.07%/yr vs 10.10%/yr for FPACX. A 0.75 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. GLRBX charges 1.18%/yr vs 1.00%/yr for FPACX.

Performance

GLRBX vs. FPACX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in James Balanced: Golden Rainbow Fund (GLRBX) and FPA Crescent Fund (FPACX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GLRBX achieves a 5.85% return, which is significantly higher than FPACX's 5.34% return. Over the past 10 years, GLRBX has underperformed FPACX with an annualized return of 5.07%, while FPACX has yielded a comparatively higher 10.10% annualized return.

GLRBX

• 1D: 0.28%
• 1M: 1.65%
• YTD: 5.85%
• 6M: 6.08%
• 1Y: 18.35%
• 3Y*: 12.80%
• 5Y*: 6.65%
• 10Y*: 5.07%

FPACX

• 1D: 0.20%
• 1M: 2.34%
• YTD: 5.34%
• 6M: 6.34%
• 1Y: 18.57%
• 3Y*: 15.50%
• 5Y*: 8.88%
• 10Y*: 10.10%

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

GLRBX vs. FPACX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
GLRBX James Balanced: Golden Rainbow Fund	5.85%	13.16%	12.27%	11.52%	-12.77%	12.69%	1.54%	12.10%	-10.60%	6.03%
FPACX FPA Crescent Fund	5.34%	17.69%	12.42%	20.30%	-9.20%	15.09%	12.14%	20.03%	-7.42%	10.38%

Correlation

The correlation between GLRBX and FPACX is 0.84, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.84
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.85
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.86
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.84
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 3, 1993	0.75

The correlation between GLRBX and FPACX shifts across timeframes, from 0.75 (all time) to 0.86 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

GLRBX vs. FPACX — Risk / Return Rank

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

GLRBX

GLRBX Risk / Return Rank: 78
GLRBX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
GLRBX Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
GLRBX Omega Ratio Rank: 76
GLRBX Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
GLRBX Martin Ratio Rank: 82

FPACX

FPACX Risk / Return Rank: 53
FPACX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
FPACX Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
FPACX Omega Ratio Rank: 56
FPACX Calmar Ratio Rank: 46
FPACX 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.

GLRBX vs. FPACX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for James Balanced: Golden Rainbow Fund (GLRBX) and FPA Crescent Fund (FPACX). 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.

	GLRBX	FPACX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.61	2.20	+0.41
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.83	3.22	+0.61
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.50	1.42	+0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.36	2.59	+0.77
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	15.44	9.81	+5.63
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

GLRBX vs. FPACX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GLRBX Sharpe Ratio is 2.61, which is comparable to the FPACX Sharpe Ratio of 2.20. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GLRBX and FPACX, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	GLRBX	FPACX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.61	2.20	+0.41
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.80	0.75	+0.05
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.61	0.77	-0.15
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.67	0.88	-0.22

Drawdowns

GLRBX vs. FPACX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GLRBX drawdown since its inception was -21.59%, smaller than the maximum FPACX drawdown of -31.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GLRBX and FPACX.

Drawdown Indicators

	GLRBX	FPACX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.59%	-31.60%	+10.01%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.55%	-7.37%	+1.82%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-8.75%	-10.95%	+2.20%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-16.73%	-18.47%	+1.74%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-16.86%	-29.46%	+12.60%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.08%	-0.02%	-0.06%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.27%	-3.88%	+0.61%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.20%	1.94%	-0.74%

Volatility

GLRBX vs. FPACX - Volatility Comparison

James Balanced: Golden Rainbow Fund (GLRBX) has a higher volatility of 2.46% compared to FPA Crescent Fund (FPACX) at 2.28%. This indicates that GLRBX's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FPACX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GLRBX	FPACX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.46%	2.28%	+0.18%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	5.86%	6.65%	-0.79%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	7.14%	8.66%	-1.52%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	8.38%	11.88%	-3.50%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	8.30%	13.20%	-4.90%

GLRBX vs. FPACX - Expense Ratio Comparison

GLRBX has a 1.18% expense ratio, which is higher than FPACX's 1.00% expense ratio.

Dividends

GLRBX vs. FPACX - Dividend Comparison

GLRBX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.71%, less than FPACX's 9.11% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FPACX FPA Crescent Fund	9.11%	9.60%	7.95%	3.72%	0.77%	11.62%	4.80%	4.65%	8.87%	3.70%	4.98%	6.34%
GLRBX James Balanced: Golden Rainbow Fund	4.71%	4.95%	3.31%	2.05%	5.18%	6.72%	1.14%	1.90%	11.45%	7.69%	1.59%	2.59%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GLRBX and FPACX in my portfolio?

GLRBX and FPACX have a correlation of 0.84, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GLRBX or FPACX?

GLRBX has higher volatility (2.46%) compared to FPACX (2.28%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GLRBX dropped -21.59% vs FPACX's -31.60%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GLRBX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.61 vs 2.20), 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.