ILS vs. RFIX
ILS (Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF) and RFIX (Simplify Bond Bull ETF) are both Nontraditional Bonds funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, ILS returned 7.81% vs -15.38% for RFIX. At a correlation of -0.05, they often move in opposite directions. ILS charges 1.58%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for RFIX.
Performance
ILS vs. RFIX - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ILS achieves a 2.27% return, which is significantly lower than RFIX's 7.47% return.
ILS
- 1D
- 0.10%
- 1M
- 1.26%
- YTD
- 2.27%
- 6M
- 2.63%
- 1Y
- 7.81%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
RFIX
- 1D
- -2.65%
- 1M
- -1.08%
- YTD
- 7.47%
- 6M
- 3.01%
- 1Y
- -15.38%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
ILS vs. RFIX - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
ILS Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF | 2.27% | 3.54% |
RFIX Simplify Bond Bull ETF | 7.47% | -29.61% |
Correlation
The correlation between ILS and RFIX is -0.08, 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 | -0.08 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 1, 2025 | -0.05 |
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. RFIX — Risk / Return Rank
ILS
RFIX
ILS vs. RFIX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF (ILS) and Simplify Bond Bull ETF (RFIX). 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 | RFIX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +3.57 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +5.62 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.69 | 0.94 | +0.75 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 14.18 | -0.61 | +14.78 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 52.13 | -1.02 | +53.15 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
ILS vs. RFIX - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ILS drawdown since its inception was -2.46%, smaller than the maximum RFIX drawdown of -38.79%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ILS and RFIX.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ILS | RFIX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -2.46% | -38.79% | +36.33% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -0.55% | -25.48% | +24.93% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | -32.57% | +32.57% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.54% | -24.30% | +23.76% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.15% | 15.17% | -15.02% |
Volatility
ILS vs. RFIX - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF (ILS) is 0.84%, while Simplify Bond Bull ETF (RFIX) has a volatility of 8.40%. This indicates that ILS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RFIX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ILS | RFIX | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 0.84% | 8.40% | -7.56% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 1.68% | 20.68% | -19.00% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.58% | 30.00% | -27.42% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 3.77% | 31.01% | -27.24% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 3.77% | 31.01% | -27.24% |
ILS vs. RFIX - Expense Ratio Comparison
ILS has a 1.58% expense ratio, which is higher than RFIX's 0.50% expense ratio.
Dividends
ILS vs. RFIX - Dividend Comparison
ILS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 8.05%, more than RFIX's 4.65% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 |
|---|---|---|
ILS Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF | 8.05% | 6.06% |
RFIX Simplify Bond Bull ETF | 4.65% | 5.07% |
Frequently Asked Questions
ILS and RFIX have a correlation of -0.08, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
RFIX has higher volatility (8.40%) compared to ILS (0.84%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ILS dropped -2.46% vs RFIX's -38.79%.
On 1-year performance, ILS leads with 7.81% vs -15.38% for RFIX. On fees, RFIX is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, ILS has been the lower-risk option at 0.84%. 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 7.81% return vs -15.38%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
RFIX is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 1.58% for ILS.
ILS has the higher dividend yield at 8.05%, compared with 4.65% for RFIX.
They also come from different issuers: Brookmont and Simplify. Their fees differ too: 1.58% for ILS and 0.50% for RFIX.
ILS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.06 vs -0.51), 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 RFIX
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