NBFC vs. CMDT

Last updated Jun 21, 2026

NBFC (Flexible Credit Income ETF) and CMDT (PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - NBFC is a Multisector Bonds fund actively managed by Neuberger, while CMDT is a Commodities fund tracking the Bloomberg Roll Select Commodity Total Return Index. NBFC is actively managed, while CMDT is passively managed. Over the past year, NBFC returned 7.76% vs 20.78% for CMDT. At a correlation of -0.04, they often move in opposite directions. NBFC charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for CMDT.

Performance

NBFC vs. CMDT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Flexible Credit Income ETF (NBFC) and PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund (CMDT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NBFC achieves a 1.78% return, which is significantly lower than CMDT's 14.74% return.

NBFC

• 1D: 0.20%
• 1M: 0.72%
• YTD: 1.78%
• 6M: 2.01%
• 1Y: 7.76%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CMDT

• 1D: -0.69%
• 1M: -7.81%
• YTD: 14.74%
• 6M: 15.38%
• 1Y: 20.78%
• 3Y*: 13.20%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

NBFC vs. CMDT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
NBFC Flexible Credit Income ETF	1.78%	9.63%	4.64%
CMDT PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund	14.74%	12.78%	-0.70%

Correlation

The correlation between NBFC and CMDT is -0.18, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.18
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 25, 2024	-0.04

The correlation between NBFC and CMDT shifts across timeframes, from -0.18 (1 year) to -0.04 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

NBFC vs. CMDT — Risk / Return Rank

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

NBFC

NBFC Risk / Return Rank: 76
NBFC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
NBFC Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
NBFC Omega Ratio Rank: 85
NBFC Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
NBFC Martin Ratio Rank: 68

CMDT

CMDT Risk / Return Rank: 48
CMDT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 49
CMDT Sortino Ratio Rank: 48
CMDT Omega Ratio Rank: 45
CMDT Calmar Ratio Rank: 43
CMDT Martin Ratio Rank: 57

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.

NBFC vs. CMDT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Flexible Credit Income ETF (NBFC) and PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund (CMDT). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	NBFC	CMDT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.46	1.66	+0.80
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.82	2.32	+1.51
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.50	1.28	+0.21
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.88	2.07	+0.82
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.18	9.74	+2.44

NBFC vs. CMDT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NBFC Sharpe Ratio is 2.46, which is higher than the CMDT Sharpe Ratio of 1.66. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NBFC and CMDT, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

NBFC vs. CMDT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NBFC drawdown since its inception was -3.99%, smaller than the maximum CMDT drawdown of -10.09%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NBFC and CMDT.

Drawdown Indicators

	NBFC	CMDT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-3.99%	-10.09%	+6.10%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.77%	-10.09%	+7.32%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-10.09%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.03%	-10.09%	+10.06%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.44%	-2.76%	+2.32%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.65%	2.28%	-1.63%

Volatility

NBFC vs. CMDT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Flexible Credit Income ETF (NBFC) is 0.93%, while PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund (CMDT) has a volatility of 3.18%. This indicates that NBFC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CMDT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NBFC	CMDT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.93%	3.18%	-2.25%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.51%	10.52%	-8.01%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.24%	12.62%	-9.38%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.62%	12.23%	-8.61%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.62%	12.23%	-8.61%

NBFC vs. CMDT - Expense Ratio Comparison

NBFC has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is lower than CMDT's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

NBFC vs. CMDT - Dividend Comparison

NBFC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 7.30%, more than CMDT's 2.64% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
CMDT PIMCO Commodity Strategy Active Exchange-Traded Fund	2.64%	3.04%	8.80%	2.71%
NBFC Flexible Credit Income ETF	7.30%	7.71%	3.95%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NBFC and CMDT in my portfolio?

NBFC and CMDT have a correlation of -0.18, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NBFC or CMDT?

CMDT has higher volatility (3.18%) compared to NBFC (0.93%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NBFC dropped -3.99% vs CMDT's -10.09%.

Which ETF is better, NBFC or CMDT?

On 1-year performance, CMDT leads with 20.78% vs 7.76% for NBFC. On fees, NBFC is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, NBFC has been the lower-risk option at 0.93%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NBFC or CMDT?

Over the 1-year period, CMDT has performed better with a 20.78% return vs 7.76%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NBFC or CMDT?

NBFC is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for CMDT.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, NBFC or CMDT?

NBFC has the higher dividend yield at 7.30%, compared with 2.64% for CMDT.

What is the main difference between NBFC and CMDT?

NBFC is categorized as Multisector Bonds, while CMDT is Commodities. They also come from different issuers: Neuberger and PIMCO. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for NBFC and 0.65% for CMDT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

NBFC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.46 vs 1.66), 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.