PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
JHMB vs. BNDS
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

JHMB vs. BNDS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in John Hancock Mortgage Backed Securities ETF (JHMB) and Infrastructure Capital Bond Income ETF (BNDS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, JHMB achieves a 0.36% return, which is significantly lower than BNDS's 4.23% return.


JHMB

1D
-0.23%
1M
0.40%
YTD
0.36%
6M
0.46%
1Y
6.77%
3Y*
5.24%
5Y*
10Y*

BNDS

1D
-0.20%
1M
0.17%
YTD
4.23%
6M
4.33%
1Y
12.86%
3Y*
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

JHMB vs. BNDS - Yearly Performance Comparison


Correlation

The correlation between JHMB and BNDS is 0.38, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.38

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 16, 2025

0.32

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

JHMB vs. BNDS — Risk / Return Rank

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

JHMB
JHMB Risk / Return Rank: 4949
Overall Rank
JHMB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5151
Sharpe Ratio Rank
JHMB Sortino Ratio Rank: 5757
Sortino Ratio Rank
JHMB Omega Ratio Rank: 5050
Omega Ratio Rank
JHMB Calmar Ratio Rank: 4646
Calmar Ratio Rank
JHMB Martin Ratio Rank: 4242
Martin Ratio Rank

BNDS
BNDS Risk / Return Rank: 8989
Overall Rank
BNDS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9494
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BNDS Sortino Ratio Rank: 9696
Sortino Ratio Rank
BNDS Omega Ratio Rank: 9696
Omega Ratio Rank
BNDS Calmar Ratio Rank: 7575
Calmar Ratio Rank
BNDS Martin Ratio Rank: 8484
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

JHMB vs. BNDS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for John Hancock Mortgage Backed Securities ETF (JHMB) and Infrastructure Capital Bond Income ETF (BNDS). 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.


JHMBBNDSDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

1.75

3.65

-1.90

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

2.69

5.40

-2.71

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.31

1.78

-0.46

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

2.26

3.75

-1.49

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

6.58

17.29

-10.71

JHMB vs. BNDS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current JHMB Sharpe Ratio is 1.75, which is lower than the BNDS Sharpe Ratio of 3.65. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of JHMB and BNDS, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


JHMBBNDSDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.75

3.65

-1.90

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.25

1.75

-1.50

Drawdowns

JHMB vs. BNDS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum JHMB drawdown since its inception was -14.53%, which is greater than BNDS's maximum drawdown of -6.96%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for JHMB and BNDS.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


JHMBBNDSDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-14.53%

-6.96%

-7.57%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-3.01%

-3.45%

+0.44%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-5.80%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.84%

-0.34%

-1.50%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.82%

-0.82%

-4.00%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.03%

0.75%

+0.28%

Volatility

JHMB vs. BNDS - Volatility Comparison

John Hancock Mortgage Backed Securities ETF (JHMB) has a higher volatility of 1.16% compared to Infrastructure Capital Bond Income ETF (BNDS) at 0.86%. This indicates that JHMB's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BNDS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


JHMBBNDSDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

1.16%

0.86%

+0.30%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

2.76%

2.74%

+0.02%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.91%

3.55%

+0.36%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

5.81%

5.29%

+0.52%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

5.81%

5.29%

+0.52%

JHMB vs. BNDS - Expense Ratio Comparison

JHMB has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than BNDS's 0.81% expense ratio.


Dividends

JHMB vs. BNDS - Dividend Comparison

JHMB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.73%, less than BNDS's 7.97% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021
BNDS
Infrastructure Capital Bond Income ETF
7.97%7.98%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
JHMB
John Hancock Mortgage Backed Securities ETF
4.73%4.48%4.88%4.04%4.17%0.98%

Frequently Asked Questions


JHMB and BNDS have a correlation of 0.38, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

JHMB has higher volatility (1.16%) compared to BNDS (0.86%). In terms of maximum drawdown, JHMB dropped -14.53% vs BNDS's -6.96%.

On 1-year performance, BNDS leads with 12.86% vs 6.77% for JHMB. On fees, JHMB is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, BNDS has been the lower-risk option at 0.86%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 1-year period, BNDS has performed better with a 12.86% return vs 6.77%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

JHMB is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.81% for BNDS.

BNDS has the higher dividend yield at 7.97%, compared with 4.73% for JHMB.

They also come from different issuers: John Hancock and InfraCap. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for JHMB and 0.81% for BNDS.

BNDS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.65 vs 1.75), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for JHMB and BNDS

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