IXG vs. FBDC
IXG (iShares Global Financials ETF) and FBDC (FT Confluence BDC & Specialty Finance Income ETF) are both Financials Equities funds. IXG is passively managed, while FBDC is actively managed. At a 0.49 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. IXG charges 0.46%/yr vs 1.35%/yr for FBDC.
Performance
IXG vs. FBDC - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, IXG achieves a -0.23% return, which is significantly higher than FBDC's -9.51% return.
IXG
- 1D
- -1.08%
- 1M
- 0.73%
- YTD
- -0.23%
- 6M
- 3.74%
- 1Y
- 12.70%
- 3Y*
- 22.63%
- 5Y*
- 10.96%
- 10Y*
- 11.83%
FBDC
- 1D
- -2.98%
- 1M
- -7.81%
- YTD
- -9.51%
- 6M
- -10.31%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
IXG vs. FBDC - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
IXG iShares Global Financials ETF | -0.23% | 9.97% |
FBDC FT Confluence BDC & Specialty Finance Income ETF | -9.51% | -2.43% |
Correlation
The correlation between IXG and FBDC is 0.49, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 1, 2025 | 0.49 |
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
IXG vs. FBDC — Risk / Return Rank
IXG
FBDC
IXG vs. FBDC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Global Financials ETF (IXG) and FT Confluence BDC & Specialty Finance Income ETF (FBDC). 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.
| IXG | FBDC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.16 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.13 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 3.97 | — | — |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| IXG | FBDC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.93 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.64 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.59 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.24 | -0.70 | +0.94 |
Drawdowns
IXG vs. FBDC - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum IXG drawdown since its inception was -78.42%, which is greater than FBDC's maximum drawdown of -20.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IXG and FBDC.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| IXG | FBDC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -78.42% | -20.60% | -57.82% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -11.33% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -13.54% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -27.20% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -43.47% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.88% | -17.24% | +14.36% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -19.75% | -10.14% | -9.61% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.21% | — | — |
Volatility
IXG vs. FBDC - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| IXG | FBDC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.70% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 10.90% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 13.67% | 18.06% | -4.39% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 17.34% | 18.06% | -0.72% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 20.12% | 18.06% | +2.06% |
IXG vs. FBDC - Expense Ratio Comparison
IXG has a 0.46% expense ratio, which is lower than FBDC's 1.35% expense ratio.
Dividends
IXG vs. FBDC - Dividend Comparison
IXG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.05%, less than FBDC's 11.52% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FBDC FT Confluence BDC & Specialty Finance Income ETF | 11.52% | 5.41% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
IXG iShares Global Financials ETF | 2.05% | 2.04% | 2.64% | 2.62% | 3.71% | 1.69% | 2.13% | 2.87% | 3.14% | 2.12% | 2.21% | 2.79% |
Frequently Asked Questions
IXG and FBDC have a correlation of 0.49, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, IXG is cheaper at 0.46% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
IXG is cheaper with a 0.46% expense ratio, compared with 1.35% for FBDC.
FBDC has the higher dividend yield at 11.52%, compared with 2.05% for IXG.
They also come from different issuers: iShares and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.46% for IXG and 1.35% for FBDC.
Find the right allocation for IXG and FBDC
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