ILS vs. DABS
ILS (Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF) and DABS (DoubleLine Asset-Backed Securities ETF) are both Nontraditional Bonds funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, ILS returned 7.46% vs 5.14% for DABS. At a 0.04 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. ILS charges 1.58%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for DABS.
Performance
ILS vs. DABS - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ILS achieves a 2.17% return, which is significantly higher than DABS's 1.11% return.
ILS
- 1D
- 0.15%
- 1M
- 1.16%
- YTD
- 2.17%
- 6M
- 2.46%
- 1Y
- 7.46%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
DABS
- 1D
- -0.08%
- 1M
- 0.35%
- YTD
- 1.11%
- 6M
- 1.39%
- 1Y
- 5.14%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
ILS vs. DABS - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
ILS Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF | 2.17% | 3.54% |
DABS DoubleLine Asset-Backed Securities ETF | 1.11% | 5.47% |
Correlation
The correlation between ILS and DABS 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 (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.04 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 1, 2025 | 0.04 |
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
ILS vs. DABS — Risk / Return Rank
ILS
DABS
ILS vs. DABS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF (ILS) and DoubleLine Asset-Backed Securities ETF (DABS). 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.
| ILS | DABS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.81 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.54 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.65 | 1.42 | +0.22 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 13.55 | 3.99 | +9.55 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 49.81 | 13.65 | +36.16 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
ILS vs. DABS - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ILS drawdown since its inception was -2.46%, which is greater than DABS's maximum drawdown of -1.47%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ILS and DABS.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ILS | DABS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -2.46% | -1.47% | -0.99% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -0.55% | -1.29% | +0.74% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | -0.26% | +0.26% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.54% | -0.31% | -0.23% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.15% | 0.38% | -0.23% |
Volatility
ILS vs. DABS - Volatility Comparison
Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF (ILS) has a higher volatility of 0.83% compared to DoubleLine Asset-Backed Securities ETF (DABS) at 0.67%. This indicates that ILS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than DABS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ILS | DABS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.83% | 0.67% | +0.16% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 1.68% | 1.66% | +0.02% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.58% | 2.46% | +0.12% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 3.78% | 2.56% | +1.22% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 3.78% | 2.56% | +1.22% |
ILS vs. DABS - Expense Ratio Comparison
ILS has a 1.58% expense ratio, which is higher than DABS's 0.40% expense ratio.
Dividends
ILS vs. DABS - Dividend Comparison
ILS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 8.06%, more than DABS's 4.88% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 |
|---|---|---|
DABS DoubleLine Asset-Backed Securities ETF | 4.88% | 3.81% |
ILS Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF | 8.06% | 6.06% |
Frequently Asked Questions
ILS and DABS 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.
ILS has higher volatility (0.83%) compared to DABS (0.67%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ILS dropped -2.46% vs DABS's -1.47%.
On 1-year performance, ILS leads with 7.46% vs 5.14% for DABS. On fees, DABS is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, DABS has been the lower-risk option at 0.67%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, ILS has performed better with a 7.46% return vs 5.14%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
DABS is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 1.58% for ILS.
ILS has the higher dividend yield at 8.06%, compared with 4.88% for DABS.
They also come from different issuers: Brookmont and DoubleLine. Their fees differ too: 1.58% for ILS and 0.40% for DABS.
ILS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.91 vs 2.10), 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 ILS and DABS
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