NBFC vs. MUSE

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

NBFC (Flexible Credit Income ETF) and MUSE (TCW Multisector Credit Income ETF) are both Multisector Bonds funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, NBFC returned 8.01% vs 8.14% for MUSE. A 0.56 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. NBFC charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.56%/yr for MUSE.

Performance

NBFC vs. MUSE - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Flexible Credit Income ETF (NBFC) and TCW Multisector Credit Income ETF (MUSE). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NBFC achieves a 1.32% return, which is significantly lower than MUSE's 2.30% return.

NBFC

• 1D: -0.25%
• 1M: 0.74%
• YTD: 1.32%
• 6M: 1.68%
• 1Y: 8.01%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

MUSE

• 1D: -0.10%
• 1M: 0.90%
• YTD: 2.30%
• 6M: 2.82%
• 1Y: 8.14%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

NBFC vs. MUSE - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
NBFC Flexible Credit Income ETF	1.32%	9.63%	0.43%
MUSE TCW Multisector Credit Income ETF	2.30%	8.25%	0.34%

Correlation

The correlation between NBFC and MUSE is 0.47, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.47
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 19, 2024	0.56

The correlation between NBFC and MUSE has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.47 to 0.56 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

NBFC vs. MUSE — Risk / Return Rank

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

NBFC

NBFC Risk / Return Rank: 75
NBFC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
NBFC Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
NBFC Omega Ratio Rank: 85
NBFC Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
NBFC Martin Ratio Rank: 68

MUSE

MUSE Risk / Return Rank: 81
MUSE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
MUSE Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
MUSE Omega Ratio Rank: 94
MUSE Calmar Ratio Rank: 66
MUSE Martin Ratio Rank: 66

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. MUSE - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Flexible Credit Income ETF (NBFC) and TCW Multisector Credit Income ETF (MUSE). 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.

	NBFC	MUSE	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.51	2.91	-0.40
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.89	4.62	-0.73
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.51	1.68	-0.17
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.91	3.22	-0.31
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	12.32	11.96	+0.37
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

NBFC vs. MUSE - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NBFC Sharpe Ratio is 2.51, which is comparable to the MUSE Sharpe Ratio of 2.91. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NBFC and MUSE, 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

	NBFC	MUSE	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.51	2.91	-0.40
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	2.23	1.85	+0.38

Drawdowns

NBFC vs. MUSE - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NBFC drawdown since its inception was -3.99%, which is greater than MUSE's maximum drawdown of -3.63%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NBFC and MUSE.

Drawdown Indicators

	NBFC	MUSE	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-3.99%	-3.63%	-0.36%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.77%	-2.54%	-0.23%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.25%	-0.10%	-0.15%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.44%	-0.43%	-0.01%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.65%	0.68%	-0.03%

Volatility

NBFC vs. MUSE - Volatility Comparison

Flexible Credit Income ETF (NBFC) has a higher volatility of 1.05% compared to TCW Multisector Credit Income ETF (MUSE) at 0.86%. This indicates that NBFC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MUSE based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NBFC	MUSE	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.05%	0.86%	+0.19%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.46%	2.40%	+0.06%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.21%	2.81%	+0.40%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.63%	3.87%	-0.24%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.63%	3.87%	-0.24%

NBFC vs. MUSE - Expense Ratio Comparison

NBFC has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is lower than MUSE's 0.56% expense ratio.

Dividends

NBFC vs. MUSE - Dividend Comparison

NBFC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 7.33%, less than MUSE's 7.70% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
MUSE TCW Multisector Credit Income ETF	7.70%	7.35%	0.75%
NBFC Flexible Credit Income ETF	7.33%	7.71%	3.95%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NBFC and MUSE in my portfolio?

NBFC and MUSE have a correlation of 0.47, 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 MUSE?

NBFC has higher volatility (1.05%) compared to MUSE (0.86%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NBFC dropped -3.99% vs MUSE's -3.63%.

Which ETF is better, NBFC or MUSE?

On 1-year performance, MUSE leads with 8.14% vs 8.01% for NBFC. On fees, NBFC is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, MUSE has been the lower-risk option at 0.86%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NBFC or MUSE?

Over the 1-year period, MUSE has performed better with a 8.14% return vs 8.01%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NBFC or MUSE?

NBFC is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.56% for MUSE.

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

MUSE has the higher dividend yield at 7.70%, compared with 7.33% for NBFC.

What is the main difference between NBFC and MUSE?

They also come from different issuers: Neuberger and TCW. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for NBFC and 0.56% for MUSE.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MUSE currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.91 vs 2.51), 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.