LONZ vs. SLNZ

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

LONZ (PIMCO Senior Loan Active Exchange-Traded Fund) and SLNZ (TCW Senior Loan ETF) are both Bank Loan funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, LONZ returned 5.52% vs 4.66% for SLNZ. At a 0.17 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. LONZ charges 0.62%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for SLNZ.

Performance

LONZ vs. SLNZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in PIMCO Senior Loan Active Exchange-Traded Fund (LONZ) and TCW Senior Loan ETF (SLNZ). 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 SLNZ's 1.58% return.

LONZ

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

SLNZ

• 1D: -0.02%
• 1M: 0.79%
• YTD: 1.58%
• 6M: 1.98%
• 1Y: 4.66%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

LONZ vs. SLNZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
LONZ PIMCO Senior Loan Active Exchange-Traded Fund	1.79%	5.05%	1.14%
SLNZ TCW Senior Loan ETF	1.58%	5.21%	0.87%

Correlation

The correlation between LONZ and SLNZ is 0.15, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.15
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 19, 2024	0.17

Return for Risk

LONZ vs. SLNZ — 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

SLNZ

SLNZ Risk / Return Rank: 32
SLNZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 30
SLNZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 26
SLNZ Omega Ratio Rank: 31
SLNZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 37
SLNZ Martin Ratio Rank: 37

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. SLNZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PIMCO Senior Loan Active Exchange-Traded Fund (LONZ) and TCW Senior Loan ETF (SLNZ). 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	SLNZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.46	1.06	+1.40
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.42	1.43	+1.99
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.59	1.21	+0.38
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.73	1.82	+0.90
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.31	5.68	+5.63
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. SLNZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LONZ Sharpe Ratio is 2.46, which is higher than the SLNZ Sharpe Ratio of 1.06. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LONZ and SLNZ, 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	SLNZ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.46	1.06	+1.40
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	2.34	1.18	+1.16

Drawdowns

LONZ vs. SLNZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LONZ drawdown since its inception was -4.19%, which is greater than SLNZ's maximum drawdown of -2.57%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LONZ and SLNZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	LONZ	SLNZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-4.19%	-2.57%	-1.62%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.03%	-2.57%	+0.54%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-4.19%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.05%	-0.02%	-0.03%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.47%	-0.45%	-0.02%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.49%	0.82%	-0.33%

Volatility

LONZ vs. SLNZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for PIMCO Senior Loan Active Exchange-Traded Fund (LONZ) is 0.54%, while TCW Senior Loan ETF (SLNZ) has a volatility of 1.46%. This indicates that LONZ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SLNZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LONZ	SLNZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.54%	1.46%	-0.92%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.05%	3.89%	-1.84%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.26%	4.42%	-2.16%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.21%	4.29%	-1.08%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.21%	4.29%	-1.08%

LONZ vs. SLNZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

LONZ has a 0.62% expense ratio, which is lower than SLNZ's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

LONZ vs. SLNZ - Dividend Comparison

LONZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 8.14%, more than SLNZ's 7.55% 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%
SLNZ TCW Senior Loan ETF	7.55%	7.39%	1.39%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LONZ and SLNZ in my portfolio?

LONZ and SLNZ have a correlation of 0.15, 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 SLNZ?

SLNZ has higher volatility (1.46%) compared to LONZ (0.54%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LONZ dropped -4.19% vs SLNZ's -2.57%.

Which ETF is better, LONZ or SLNZ?

On 1-year performance, LONZ leads with 5.52% vs 4.66% for SLNZ. On fees, LONZ is cheaper at 0.62% 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 SLNZ?

Over the 1-year period, LONZ has performed better with a 5.52% return vs 4.66%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LONZ or SLNZ?

LONZ is cheaper with a 0.62% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for SLNZ.

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

LONZ has the higher dividend yield at 8.14%, compared with 7.55% for SLNZ.

What is the main difference between LONZ and SLNZ?

They also come from different issuers: PIMCO and TCW. Their fees differ too: 0.62% for LONZ and 0.65% for SLNZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LONZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.46 vs 1.06), 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.