LENS vs. MINT

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

LENS (Sarmaya Thematic ETF) and MINT (PIMCO Enhanced Short Maturity Active ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LENS is a Global Equities fund actively managed by Sarmaya Partners, while MINT is a Ultrashort Bond fund actively managed by PIMCO. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, LENS returned 61.82% vs 4.67% for MINT. At a correlation of -0.07, they often move in opposite directions. LENS charges 0.79%/yr vs 0.36%/yr for MINT.

Performance

LENS vs. MINT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Sarmaya Thematic ETF (LENS) and PIMCO Enhanced Short Maturity Active ETF (MINT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LENS achieves a 13.33% return, which is significantly higher than MINT's 1.81% return.

LENS

• 1D: -1.54%
• 1M: -1.68%
• YTD: 13.33%
• 6M: 18.33%
• 1Y: 61.82%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

MINT

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.36%
• YTD: 1.81%
• 6M: 2.20%
• 1Y: 4.67%
• 3Y*: 5.41%
• 5Y*: 3.47%
• 10Y*: 2.70%

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

LENS vs. MINT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
LENS Sarmaya Thematic ETF	13.33%	56.21%
MINT PIMCO Enhanced Short Maturity Active ETF	1.81%	4.37%

Correlation

The correlation between LENS and MINT 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 Jan 30, 2025	-0.07

Return for Risk

LENS vs. MINT — Risk / Return Rank

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

LENS

LENS Risk / Return Rank: 67
LENS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
LENS Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
LENS Omega Ratio Rank: 68
LENS Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
LENS Martin Ratio Rank: 58

MINT

MINT Risk / Return Rank: 100
MINT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
MINT Sortino Ratio Rank: 100
MINT Omega Ratio Rank: 100
MINT Calmar Ratio Rank: 100
MINT Martin Ratio Rank: 100

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.

LENS vs. MINT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Sarmaya Thematic ETF (LENS) and PIMCO Enhanced Short Maturity Active ETF (MINT). 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.

	LENS	MINT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.34	17.09	-14.75
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.70	65.54	-62.84
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.41	20.53	-19.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.02	94.30	-90.29
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.02	939.26	-929.24
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LENS vs. MINT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LENS Sharpe Ratio is 2.34, which is lower than the MINT Sharpe Ratio of 17.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LENS and MINT, 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

	LENS	MINT	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.34	17.09	-14.75
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	5.99	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	2.87	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	2.09	2.47	-0.37

Drawdowns

LENS vs. MINT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LENS drawdown since its inception was -15.47%, which is greater than MINT's maximum drawdown of -4.62%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LENS and MINT.

Drawdown Indicators

	LENS	MINT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.47%	-4.62%	-10.85%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.47%	-0.05%	-15.42%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-0.16%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-2.42%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-4.62%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-13.64%	0.00%	-13.64%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.71%	-0.17%	-3.54%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.19%	0.00%	+6.19%

Volatility

LENS vs. MINT - Volatility Comparison

Sarmaya Thematic ETF (LENS) has a higher volatility of 6.16% compared to PIMCO Enhanced Short Maturity Active ETF (MINT) at 0.09%. This indicates that LENS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MINT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LENS	MINT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.16%	0.09%	+6.07%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.07%	0.20%	+21.87%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.54%	0.27%	+26.27%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	25.49%	0.58%	+24.91%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.49%	0.95%	+24.54%

LENS vs. MINT - Expense Ratio Comparison

LENS has a 0.79% expense ratio, which is higher than MINT's 0.36% expense ratio.

Dividends

LENS vs. MINT - Dividend Comparison

LENS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.41%, less than MINT's 4.28% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
LENS Sarmaya Thematic ETF	1.41%	1.60%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
MINT PIMCO Enhanced Short Maturity Active ETF	4.28%	4.63%	5.22%	4.91%	1.90%	0.44%	1.15%	2.65%	2.32%	1.61%	1.35%	0.88%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LENS and MINT in my portfolio?

LENS and MINT 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.

Which is riskier, LENS or MINT?

LENS has higher volatility (6.16%) compared to MINT (0.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LENS dropped -15.47% vs MINT's -4.62%.

Which ETF is better, LENS or MINT?

On 1-year performance, LENS leads with 61.82% vs 4.67% for MINT. On fees, MINT is cheaper at 0.36% per year. On volatility, MINT has been the lower-risk option at 0.09%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LENS or MINT?

Over the 1-year period, LENS has performed better with a 61.82% return vs 4.67%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LENS or MINT?

MINT is cheaper with a 0.36% expense ratio, compared with 0.79% for LENS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, LENS or MINT?

MINT has the higher dividend yield at 4.28%, compared with 1.41% for LENS.

What is the main difference between LENS and MINT?

LENS is categorized as Global Equities, while MINT is Ultrashort Bond. They also come from different issuers: Sarmaya Partners and PIMCO. Their fees differ too: 0.79% for LENS and 0.36% for MINT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MINT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (17.09 vs 2.34), 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.