INVG vs. FLTR

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

INVG (GMO Systematic Investment Grade Credit ETF) and FLTR (VanEck IG Floating Rate ETF) are both Corporate Bonds funds. INVG is actively managed, while FLTR is passively managed. Over the past year, INVG returned 5.23% vs 5.25% for FLTR. At a 0.14 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. INVG charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.14%/yr for FLTR.

Performance

INVG vs. FLTR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in GMO Systematic Investment Grade Credit ETF (INVG) and VanEck IG Floating Rate ETF (FLTR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, INVG achieves a 0.96% return, which is significantly lower than FLTR's 2.19% return.

INVG

• 1D: 0.16%
• 1M: 0.87%
• YTD: 0.96%
• 6M: 1.01%
• 1Y: 5.23%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FLTR

• 1D: 0.08%
• 1M: 0.38%
• YTD: 2.19%
• 6M: 2.36%
• 1Y: 5.25%
• 3Y*: 6.16%
• 5Y*: 4.55%
• 10Y*: 3.49%

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

INVG vs. FLTR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
INVG GMO Systematic Investment Grade Credit ETF	0.96%	5.03%
FLTR VanEck IG Floating Rate ETF	2.19%	3.32%

Correlation

The correlation between INVG and FLTR is 0.13, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.13
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 4, 2025	0.14

Return for Risk

INVG vs. FLTR — Risk / Return Rank

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

INVG

INVG Risk / Return Rank: 36
INVG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 36
INVG Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
INVG Omega Ratio Rank: 33
INVG Calmar Ratio Rank: 36
INVG Martin Ratio Rank: 37

FLTR

FLTR Risk / Return Rank: 99
FLTR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
FLTR Sortino Ratio Rank: 99
FLTR Omega Ratio Rank: 99
FLTR Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
FLTR Martin Ratio Rank: 99

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.

INVG vs. FLTR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for GMO Systematic Investment Grade Credit ETF (INVG) and VanEck IG Floating Rate ETF (FLTR). 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.

	INVG	FLTR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.18	6.56	-5.38
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.74	12.18	-10.43
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.21	3.03	-1.83
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.67	16.82	-15.16
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.31	98.58	-93.28

INVG vs. FLTR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current INVG Sharpe Ratio is 1.18, which is lower than the FLTR Sharpe Ratio of 6.56. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of INVG and FLTR, 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

INVG vs. FLTR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum INVG drawdown since its inception was -3.15%, smaller than the maximum FLTR drawdown of -17.84%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for INVG and FLTR.

Drawdown Indicators

	INVG	FLTR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-3.15%	-17.84%	+14.69%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.15%	-0.31%	-2.84%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-1.93%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-3.06%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-17.84%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.61%	-0.00%	-0.61%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.71%	-0.67%	-0.04%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.99%	0.05%	+0.94%

Volatility

INVG vs. FLTR - Volatility Comparison

GMO Systematic Investment Grade Credit ETF (INVG) has a higher volatility of 1.26% compared to VanEck IG Floating Rate ETF (FLTR) at 0.29%. This indicates that INVG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLTR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	INVG	FLTR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.26%	0.29%	+0.97%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.41%	0.66%	+2.75%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.45%	0.80%	+3.65%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	4.45%	2.13%	+2.32%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	4.45%	5.00%	-0.55%

INVG vs. FLTR - Expense Ratio Comparison

INVG has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is higher than FLTR's 0.14% 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

INVG vs. FLTR - Dividend Comparison

INVG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.66%, less than FLTR's 4.72% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FLTR VanEck IG Floating Rate ETF	4.72%	4.97%	5.93%	6.07%	2.29%	0.63%	1.49%	3.05%	2.67%	1.69%	1.16%	0.71%
INVG GMO Systematic Investment Grade Credit ETF	4.66%	2.81%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both INVG and FLTR in my portfolio?

INVG and FLTR have a correlation of 0.13, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, INVG or FLTR?

INVG has higher volatility (1.26%) compared to FLTR (0.29%). In terms of maximum drawdown, INVG dropped -3.15% vs FLTR's -17.84%.

Which ETF is better, INVG or FLTR?

On 1-year performance, FLTR leads with 5.25% vs 5.23% for INVG. On fees, FLTR is cheaper at 0.14% per year. On volatility, FLTR has been the lower-risk option at 0.29%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, INVG or FLTR?

Over the 1-year period, FLTR has performed better with a 5.25% return vs 5.23%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, INVG or FLTR?

FLTR is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for INVG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, INVG or FLTR?

FLTR has the higher dividend yield at 4.72%, compared with 4.66% for INVG.

What is the main difference between INVG and FLTR?

They also come from different issuers: GMO and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for INVG and 0.14% for FLTR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLTR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (6.56 vs 1.18), 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.