MYCI vs. FLTR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

MYCI (State Street My2029 Corporate Bond ETF) and FLTR (VanEck Vectors Investment Grade Floating Rate ETF) are both Corporate Bonds funds. MYCI is actively managed, while FLTR is passively managed. Over the past year, MYCI returned 4.75% vs 5.30% for FLTR. At a 0.08 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. MYCI charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.14%/yr for FLTR.

Performance

MYCI vs. FLTR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in State Street My2029 Corporate Bond ETF (MYCI) and VanEck Vectors Investment Grade Floating Rate ETF (FLTR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, MYCI achieves a 0.45% return, which is significantly lower than FLTR's 1.91% return.

MYCI

• 1D: -0.04%
• 1M: 0.17%
• YTD: 0.45%
• 6M: 0.87%
• 1Y: 4.75%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FLTR

• 1D: -0.04%
• 1M: 0.46%
• YTD: 1.91%
• 6M: 2.40%
• 1Y: 5.30%
• 3Y*: 6.10%
• 5Y*: 4.49%
• 10Y*: 3.51%

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

MYCI vs. FLTR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
MYCI State Street My2029 Corporate Bond ETF	0.45%	7.59%	-1.56%
FLTR VanEck Vectors Investment Grade Floating Rate ETF	1.91%	5.22%	1.87%

Correlation

The correlation between MYCI and FLTR is 0.13, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.13
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 25, 2024	0.08

Return for Risk

MYCI vs. FLTR — Risk / Return Rank

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

MYCI

MYCI Risk / Return Rank: 67
MYCI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
MYCI Sortino Ratio Rank: 72
MYCI Omega Ratio Rank: 71
MYCI Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
MYCI Martin Ratio Rank: 63

FLTR

FLTR Risk / Return Rank: 99
FLTR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
FLTR Sortino Ratio Rank: 99
FLTR Omega Ratio Rank: 99
FLTR Calmar Ratio Rank: 98
FLTR Martin Ratio Rank: 99

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.

MYCI vs. FLTR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for State Street My2029 Corporate Bond ETF (MYCI) and VanEck Vectors Investment Grade Floating Rate ETF (FLTR). 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.

	MYCI	FLTR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.15	6.77	-4.62
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.22	12.78	-9.56
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.42	3.15	-1.73
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.05	16.96	-13.91
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.23	101.23	-90.00
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MYCI vs. FLTR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MYCI Sharpe Ratio is 2.15, which is lower than the FLTR Sharpe Ratio of 6.77. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MYCI and FLTR, 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

	MYCI	FLTR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.15	6.77	-4.62
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	2.11	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.70	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.24	0.53	+0.72

Drawdowns

MYCI vs. FLTR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MYCI drawdown since its inception was -2.41%, smaller than the maximum FLTR drawdown of -17.84%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MYCI and FLTR.

Drawdown Indicators

	MYCI	FLTR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-2.41%	-17.84%	+15.43%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-1.56%	-0.31%	-1.25%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-1.93%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-3.06%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-17.84%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.56%	-0.04%	-0.52%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.54%	-0.67%	+0.13%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.42%	0.05%	+0.37%

Volatility

MYCI vs. FLTR - Volatility Comparison

State Street My2029 Corporate Bond ETF (MYCI) has a higher volatility of 0.59% compared to VanEck Vectors Investment Grade Floating Rate ETF (FLTR) at 0.25%. This indicates that MYCI's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLTR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	MYCI	FLTR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.59%	0.25%	+0.34%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.50%	0.62%	+0.88%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.22%	0.79%	+1.43%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.02%	2.13%	+0.89%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.02%	5.00%	-1.98%

MYCI vs. FLTR - Expense Ratio Comparison

MYCI has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is higher than FLTR's 0.14% 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

MYCI vs. FLTR - Dividend Comparison

MYCI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.57%, less than FLTR's 4.73% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FLTR VanEck Vectors Investment Grade Floating Rate ETF	4.73%	4.97%	5.93%	6.07%	2.29%	0.63%	1.49%	3.05%	2.67%	1.69%	1.16%	0.71%
MYCI State Street My2029 Corporate Bond ETF	4.57%	4.56%	1.19%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MYCI and FLTR in my portfolio?

MYCI and FLTR have a correlation of 0.13, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MYCI or FLTR?

MYCI has higher volatility (0.59%) compared to FLTR (0.25%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MYCI dropped -2.41% vs FLTR's -17.84%.

Which ETF is better, MYCI or FLTR?

On 1-year performance, FLTR leads with 5.30% vs 4.75% for MYCI. On fees, FLTR is cheaper at 0.14% per year. On volatility, FLTR has been the lower-risk option at 0.25%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MYCI or FLTR?

Over the 1-year period, FLTR has performed better with a 5.30% return vs 4.75%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MYCI or FLTR?

FLTR is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.15% for MYCI.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, MYCI or FLTR?

FLTR has the higher dividend yield at 4.73%, compared with 4.57% for MYCI.

What is the main difference between MYCI and FLTR?

They also come from different issuers: State Street and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for MYCI and 0.14% for FLTR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLTR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (6.77 vs 2.15), 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.