LONZ vs. MBSF

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

LONZ (PIMCO Senior Loan Active Exchange-Traded Fund) and MBSF (Regan Floating Rate MBS ETF) are both Bank Loan funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, LONZ returned 5.52% vs 5.34% for MBSF. At a correlation of -0.01, they often move in opposite directions. LONZ charges 0.62%/yr vs 0.49%/yr for MBSF.

Performance

LONZ vs. MBSF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in PIMCO Senior Loan Active Exchange-Traded Fund (LONZ) and Regan Floating Rate MBS ETF (MBSF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LONZ achieves a 1.79% return, which is significantly higher than MBSF's 1.48% return.

LONZ

• 1D: -0.05%
• 1M: 0.43%
• YTD: 1.79%
• 6M: 1.74%
• 1Y: 5.52%
• 3Y*: 8.28%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

MBSF

• 1D: 0.12%
• 1M: -0.03%
• YTD: 1.48%
• 6M: 2.16%
• 1Y: 5.34%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

LONZ vs. MBSF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
LONZ PIMCO Senior Loan Active Exchange-Traded Fund	1.79%	5.05%	7.87%
MBSF Regan Floating Rate MBS ETF	1.48%	5.85%	5.71%

Correlation

The correlation between LONZ and MBSF is -0.06, 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	-0.06
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 29, 2024	-0.01

Return for Risk

LONZ vs. MBSF — Risk / Return Rank

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

LONZ

LONZ Risk / Return Rank: 72
LONZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
LONZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
LONZ Omega Ratio Rank: 90
LONZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
LONZ Martin Ratio Rank: 62

MBSF

MBSF Risk / Return Rank: 70
MBSF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 53
MBSF Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
MBSF Omega Ratio Rank: 55
MBSF Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
MBSF Martin Ratio Rank: 88

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.

LONZ vs. MBSF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PIMCO Senior Loan Active Exchange-Traded Fund (LONZ) and Regan Floating Rate MBS ETF (MBSF). 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.

	LONZ	MBSF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.46	1.79	+0.67
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.42	2.77	+0.65
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.59	1.34	+0.26
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.73	6.77	-4.04
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.31	19.20	-7.89
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LONZ vs. MBSF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LONZ Sharpe Ratio is 2.46, which is higher than the MBSF Sharpe Ratio of 1.79. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LONZ and MBSF, 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

	LONZ	MBSF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.46	1.79	+0.67
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	2.34	1.74	+0.60

Drawdowns

LONZ vs. MBSF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LONZ drawdown since its inception was -4.19%, which is greater than MBSF's maximum drawdown of -0.97%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LONZ and MBSF.

Drawdown Indicators

	LONZ	MBSF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-4.19%	-0.97%	-3.22%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.03%	-0.79%	-1.24%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-4.19%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.05%	-0.10%	+0.05%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.47%	-0.23%	-0.24%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.49%	0.28%	+0.21%

Volatility

LONZ vs. MBSF - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for PIMCO Senior Loan Active Exchange-Traded Fund (LONZ) is 0.54%, while Regan Floating Rate MBS ETF (MBSF) has a volatility of 0.64%. This indicates that LONZ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MBSF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LONZ	MBSF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.54%	0.64%	-0.10%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.05%	2.16%	-0.11%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.26%	3.01%	-0.75%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.21%	3.34%	-0.13%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.21%	3.34%	-0.13%

LONZ vs. MBSF - Expense Ratio Comparison

LONZ has a 0.62% expense ratio, which is higher than MBSF's 0.49% expense ratio.

Dividends

LONZ vs. MBSF - Dividend Comparison

LONZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 8.14%, more than MBSF's 4.49% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
LONZ PIMCO Senior Loan Active Exchange-Traded Fund	8.14%	6.60%	8.16%	8.29%	3.33%
MBSF Regan Floating Rate MBS ETF	4.49%	4.71%	4.14%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LONZ and MBSF in my portfolio?

LONZ and MBSF have a correlation of -0.06, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LONZ or MBSF?

MBSF has higher volatility (0.64%) compared to LONZ (0.54%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LONZ dropped -4.19% vs MBSF's -0.97%.

Which ETF is better, LONZ or MBSF?

On 1-year performance, LONZ leads with 5.52% vs 5.34% for MBSF. On fees, MBSF is cheaper at 0.49% per year. On volatility, LONZ has been the lower-risk option at 0.54%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LONZ or MBSF?

Over the 1-year period, LONZ has performed better with a 5.52% return vs 5.34%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LONZ or MBSF?

MBSF is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.62% for LONZ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, LONZ or MBSF?

LONZ has the higher dividend yield at 8.14%, compared with 4.49% for MBSF.

What is the main difference between LONZ and MBSF?

They also come from different issuers: PIMCO and Regan. Their fees differ too: 0.62% for LONZ and 0.49% for MBSF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LONZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.46 vs 1.79), 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.