LCCMX vs. FILDX

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

LCCMX (Leader Short Term High Yield Bond Fund) and FILDX (Frost Low Duration Bond Fund) are both Short-Term Bond funds. Over the past 10 years, LCCMX returned 4.25%/yr vs 2.22%/yr for FILDX. At a 0.16 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. LCCMX charges 2.55%/yr vs 0.43%/yr for FILDX.

Performance

LCCMX vs. FILDX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Leader Short Term High Yield Bond Fund (LCCMX) and Frost Low Duration Bond Fund (FILDX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LCCMX achieves a 3.76% return, which is significantly higher than FILDX's 0.40% return. Over the past 10 years, LCCMX has outperformed FILDX with an annualized return of 4.25%, while FILDX has yielded a comparatively lower 2.22% annualized return.

LCCMX

• 1D: -0.12%
• 1M: 0.71%
• YTD: 3.76%
• 6M: 6.46%
• 1Y: 11.06%
• 3Y*: 14.61%
• 5Y*: 6.06%
• 10Y*: 4.25%

FILDX

• 1D: -0.10%
• 1M: 0.01%
• YTD: 0.40%
• 6M: 0.76%
• 1Y: 3.53%
• 3Y*: 4.80%
• 5Y*: 2.07%
• 10Y*: 2.22%

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

LCCMX vs. FILDX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
LCCMX Leader Short Term High Yield Bond Fund	3.76%	9.73%	18.51%	13.73%	-13.30%	1.30%	7.52%	0.65%	2.35%	1.89%
FILDX Frost Low Duration Bond Fund	0.40%	5.26%	4.87%	5.71%	-4.80%	-0.35%	4.25%	3.22%	1.83%	1.77%

Correlation

The correlation between LCCMX and FILDX is -0.02, 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	-0.02
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.08
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.16
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.14
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 15, 2005	0.16

The correlation between LCCMX and FILDX shifts across timeframes, from -0.02 (1 year) to 0.16 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

LCCMX vs. FILDX — Risk / Return Rank

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

LCCMX

LCCMX Risk / Return Rank: 74
LCCMX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
LCCMX Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
LCCMX Omega Ratio Rank: 97
LCCMX Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
LCCMX Martin Ratio Rank: 50

FILDX

FILDX Risk / Return Rank: 65
FILDX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 54
FILDX Sortino Ratio Rank: 63
FILDX Omega Ratio Rank: 68
FILDX Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
FILDX Martin Ratio Rank: 62

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.

LCCMX vs. FILDX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Leader Short Term High Yield Bond Fund (LCCMX) and Frost Low Duration Bond Fund (FILDX). 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.

	LCCMX	FILDX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.42	2.13	+0.30
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	5.29	3.27	+2.02
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.99	1.45	+0.54
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.92	3.41	-0.49
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.29	12.05	-1.76
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LCCMX vs. FILDX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LCCMX Sharpe Ratio is 2.42, which is comparable to the FILDX Sharpe Ratio of 2.13. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LCCMX and FILDX, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	LCCMX	FILDX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.42	2.13	+0.30
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.04	0.96	+0.09
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.67	1.22	-0.55
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.81	0.96	-0.15

Drawdowns

LCCMX vs. FILDX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LCCMX drawdown since its inception was -24.57%, which is greater than FILDX's maximum drawdown of -7.20%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LCCMX and FILDX.

Drawdown Indicators

	LCCMX	FILDX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.57%	-7.20%	-17.37%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.76%	-1.10%	-2.66%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-3.76%	-1.14%	-2.62%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-19.20%	-7.20%	-12.00%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-24.57%	-7.20%	-17.37%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.12%	-0.51%	+0.39%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.79%	-1.60%	-1.19%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.06%	0.31%	+0.75%

Volatility

LCCMX vs. FILDX - Volatility Comparison

Leader Short Term High Yield Bond Fund (LCCMX) has a higher volatility of 0.70% compared to Frost Low Duration Bond Fund (FILDX) at 0.51%. This indicates that LCCMX's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FILDX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LCCMX	FILDX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.70%	0.51%	+0.19%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.07%	1.23%	+2.84%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.53%	1.77%	+2.76%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.84%	2.17%	+3.67%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	6.35%	1.83%	+4.52%

LCCMX vs. FILDX - Expense Ratio Comparison

LCCMX has a 2.55% expense ratio, which is higher than FILDX's 0.43% expense ratio.

Dividends

LCCMX vs. FILDX - Dividend Comparison

LCCMX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 8.54%, more than FILDX's 4.23% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FILDX Frost Low Duration Bond Fund	4.23%	3.61%	4.45%	3.65%	1.86%	1.98%	2.02%	2.18%	1.90%	1.76%	1.63%	1.35%
LCCMX Leader Short Term High Yield Bond Fund	8.54%	8.93%	10.39%	8.55%	5.68%	2.11%	2.11%	2.98%	2.89%	2.10%	2.01%	2.75%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LCCMX and FILDX in my portfolio?

LCCMX and FILDX have a correlation of -0.02, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LCCMX or FILDX?

LCCMX has higher volatility (0.70%) compared to FILDX (0.51%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LCCMX dropped -24.57% vs FILDX's -7.20%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LCCMX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.42 vs 2.13), 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.