IFLN vs. RBIL
IFLN (Invesco Bloomberg Enhanced Fallen Angels ETF) and RBIL (F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IFLN is a High Yield Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg US High Yield Enhanced Fallen Angels Index, while RBIL is a Inflation-Protected Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg US Ultrashort TIPS 1-13 Months Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, IFLN returned 5.63% vs 4.07% for RBIL. At a correlation of -0.16, they often move in opposite directions. IFLN charges 0.23%/yr vs 0.17%/yr for RBIL.
Performance
IFLN vs. RBIL - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IFLN achieves a 1.07% return, which is significantly lower than RBIL's 2.32% return.
IFLN
- 1D
- 0.11%
- 1M
- 0.88%
- YTD
- 1.07%
- 6M
- 1.28%
- 1Y
- 5.63%
- 3Y*
- 7.73%
- 5Y*
- 3.55%
- 10Y*
- 4.63%
RBIL
- 1D
- 0.01%
- 1M
- -0.19%
- YTD
- 2.32%
- 6M
- 2.37%
- 1Y
- 4.07%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
IFLN vs. RBIL - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
IFLN Invesco Bloomberg Enhanced Fallen Angels ETF | 1.07% | 7.03% |
RBIL F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF | 2.32% | 2.85% |
Correlation
The correlation between IFLN and RBIL is -0.19, 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 | -0.19 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 25, 2025 | -0.16 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
IFLN vs. RBIL — Risk / Return Rank
IFLN
RBIL
IFLN vs. RBIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Bloomberg Enhanced Fallen Angels ETF (IFLN) and F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL). 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.
| IFLN | RBIL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -2.93 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -4.62 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.27 | 2.13 | -0.86 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.39 | 7.82 | -6.44 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 5.66 | 42.95 | -37.29 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
IFLN vs. RBIL - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IFLN drawdown since its inception was -44.79%, which is greater than RBIL's maximum drawdown of -0.52%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IFLN and RBIL.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IFLN | RBIL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -44.79% | -0.52% | -44.27% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -4.08% | -0.52% | -3.56% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -4.08% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -13.76% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -21.52% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.05% | -0.50% | +0.45% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.32% | -0.07% | -4.25% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.00% | 0.10% | +0.90% |
Volatility
IFLN vs. RBIL - Volatility Comparison
Invesco Bloomberg Enhanced Fallen Angels ETF (IFLN) has a higher volatility of 1.16% compared to F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL) at 0.36%. This indicates that IFLN's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RBIL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IFLN | RBIL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.16% | 0.36% | +0.80% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 3.29% | 0.85% | +2.44% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.98% | 0.95% | +3.03% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 6.38% | 1.07% | +5.31% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 6.89% | 1.07% | +5.82% |
IFLN vs. RBIL - Expense Ratio Comparison
IFLN has a 0.23% expense ratio, which is higher than RBIL's 0.17% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
IFLN vs. RBIL - Dividend Comparison
IFLN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.86%, more than RBIL's 4.38% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
IFLN Invesco Bloomberg Enhanced Fallen Angels ETF | 5.86% | 5.48% | 5.69% | 4.68% | 3.52% | 3.37% | 3.90% | 4.03% | 4.44% | 4.14% | 4.58% | 4.69% |
RBIL F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF | 4.38% | 3.65% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IFLN and RBIL have a correlation of -0.19, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
IFLN has higher volatility (1.16%) compared to RBIL (0.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IFLN dropped -44.79% vs RBIL's -0.52%.
On 1-year performance, IFLN leads with 5.63% vs 4.07% for RBIL. On fees, RBIL is cheaper at 0.17% per year. On volatility, RBIL has been the lower-risk option at 0.36%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, IFLN has performed better with a 5.63% return vs 4.07%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
RBIL is cheaper with a 0.17% expense ratio, compared with 0.23% for IFLN.
IFLN has the higher dividend yield at 5.86%, compared with 4.38% for RBIL.
IFLN is categorized as High Yield Bonds, while RBIL is Inflation-Protected Bonds. IFLN tracks Bloomberg US High Yield Enhanced Fallen Angels Index, while RBIL tracks Bloomberg US Ultrashort TIPS 1-13 Months Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and F/m. Their fees differ too: 0.23% for IFLN and 0.17% for RBIL.
RBIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.35 vs 1.42), 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.
Find the right allocation for IFLN and RBIL
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer