MCDWX vs. QDIBX

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

MCDWX (Manning & Napier Credit Series) and QDIBX (Fisher Investments Institutional Group Fixed Income Fund for Retirement Plans) are both Intermediate Core Bond funds. Over the past 5 years, MCDWX returned 1.55%/yr vs 0.09%/yr for QDIBX. Their correlation of 0.92 suggests significant overlap in exposure. MCDWX charges 0.10%/yr vs 0.03%/yr for QDIBX.

Performance

MCDWX vs. QDIBX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Manning & Napier Credit Series (MCDWX) and Fisher Investments Institutional Group Fixed Income Fund for Retirement Plans (QDIBX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MCDWX achieves a 0.45% return, which is significantly higher than QDIBX's -0.22% return.

MCDWX

• 1D: -0.11%
• 1M: 0.17%
• YTD: 0.45%
• 6M: 0.69%
• 1Y: 4.88%
• 3Y*: 5.50%
• 5Y*: 1.55%
• 10Y*: —

QDIBX

• 1D: -0.11%
• 1M: -0.11%
• YTD: -0.22%
• 6M: -0.09%
• 1Y: 4.08%
• 3Y*: 4.36%
• 5Y*: 0.09%
• 10Y*: —

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

MCDWX vs. QDIBX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
MCDWX Manning & Napier Credit Series	0.45%	7.57%	4.13%	7.31%	-11.13%	0.01%	8.77%
QDIBX Fisher Investments Institutional Group Fixed Income Fund for Retirement Plans	-0.22%	7.72%	1.66%	6.71%	-14.11%	-0.17%	4.88%

Correlation

The correlation between MCDWX and QDIBX is 0.89, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.89
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.94
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.94
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 15, 2020	0.92

The correlation between MCDWX and QDIBX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.89 to 0.94 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

MCDWX vs. QDIBX — Risk / Return Rank

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

MCDWX

MCDWX Risk / Return Rank: 42
MCDWX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 41
MCDWX Sortino Ratio Rank: 42
MCDWX Omega Ratio Rank: 46
MCDWX Calmar Ratio Rank: 44
MCDWX Martin Ratio Rank: 38

QDIBX

QDIBX Risk / Return Rank: 19
QDIBX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 19
QDIBX Sortino Ratio Rank: 20
QDIBX Omega Ratio Rank: 18
QDIBX Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
QDIBX Martin Ratio Rank: 18

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.

MCDWX vs. QDIBX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Manning & Napier Credit Series (MCDWX) and Fisher Investments Institutional Group Fixed Income Fund for Retirement Plans (QDIBX). 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.

	MCDWX	QDIBX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.83	1.23	+0.60
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.66	1.84	+0.82
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.36	1.22	+0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.48	1.58	+0.90
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.03	4.77	+3.25
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MCDWX vs. QDIBX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MCDWX Sharpe Ratio is 1.83, which is higher than the QDIBX Sharpe Ratio of 1.23. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MCDWX and QDIBX, 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

	MCDWX	QDIBX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.83	1.23	+0.60
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.34	0.01	+0.32
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.59	0.16	+0.43

Drawdowns

MCDWX vs. QDIBX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MCDWX drawdown since its inception was -15.96%, smaller than the maximum QDIBX drawdown of -19.63%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MCDWX and QDIBX.

Drawdown Indicators

	MCDWX	QDIBX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.96%	-19.63%	+3.67%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.17%	-2.97%	+0.80%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-4.22%	-5.37%	+1.15%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-15.96%	-19.63%	+3.67%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.06%	-1.98%	+0.92%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.15%	-6.39%	+2.24%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.67%	0.98%	-0.31%

Volatility

MCDWX vs. QDIBX - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Manning & Napier Credit Series (MCDWX) is 1.04%, while Fisher Investments Institutional Group Fixed Income Fund for Retirement Plans (QDIBX) has a volatility of 1.25%. This indicates that MCDWX experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than QDIBX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MCDWX	QDIBX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.04%	1.25%	-0.21%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.16%	2.60%	-0.44%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.94%	3.82%	-0.88%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	4.63%	6.59%	-1.96%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	4.38%	6.26%	-1.88%

MCDWX vs. QDIBX - Expense Ratio Comparison

MCDWX has a 0.10% expense ratio, which is higher than QDIBX's 0.03% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

MCDWX vs. QDIBX - Dividend Comparison

MCDWX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.47%, more than QDIBX's 3.51% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
MCDWX Manning & Napier Credit Series	4.47%	4.83%	4.41%	4.48%	3.25%	4.45%	2.57%
QDIBX Fisher Investments Institutional Group Fixed Income Fund for Retirement Plans	3.51%	3.50%	3.55%	3.65%	2.51%	1.80%	3.25%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MCDWX and QDIBX in my portfolio?

MCDWX and QDIBX have a correlation of 0.89, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MCDWX or QDIBX?

QDIBX has higher volatility (1.25%) compared to MCDWX (1.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MCDWX dropped -15.96% vs QDIBX's -19.63%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MCDWX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.83 vs 1.23), 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.