NBFC vs. VGMS

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

NBFC (Flexible Credit Income ETF) and VGMS (Vanguard Multi-Sector Income Bond ETF) are both Multisector Bonds funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, NBFC returned 7.30% vs 6.52% for VGMS. Their correlation of 0.80 suggests significant overlap in exposure. NBFC charges 0.40%/yr vs 0.30%/yr for VGMS.

Performance

NBFC vs. VGMS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Flexible Credit Income ETF (NBFC) and Vanguard Multi-Sector Income Bond ETF (VGMS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NBFC achieves a 1.56% return, which is significantly higher than VGMS's 1.48% return.

NBFC

• 1D: -0.14%
• 1M: 0.50%
• YTD: 1.56%
• 6M: 1.73%
• 1Y: 7.30%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

VGMS

• 1D: 0.17%
• 1M: 0.73%
• YTD: 1.48%
• 6M: 1.55%
• 1Y: 6.52%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

NBFC vs. VGMS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
NBFC Flexible Credit Income ETF	1.56%	6.27%
VGMS Vanguard Multi-Sector Income Bond ETF	1.48%	5.51%

Correlation

The correlation between NBFC and VGMS is 0.80, 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	0.80
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 11, 2025	0.80

The correlation between NBFC and VGMS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.80 to 0.80 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

NBFC vs. VGMS — 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: 79
NBFC Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
NBFC Omega Ratio Rank: 84
NBFC Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
NBFC Martin Ratio Rank: 67

VGMS

VGMS Risk / Return Rank: 66
VGMS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
VGMS Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
VGMS Omega Ratio Rank: 69
VGMS Calmar Ratio Rank: 58
VGMS Martin Ratio Rank: 69

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. VGMS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Flexible Credit Income ETF (NBFC) and Vanguard Multi-Sector Income Bond ETF (VGMS). 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	VGMS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.26	2.01	+0.25
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.51	2.99	+0.52
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.45	1.39	+0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.65	2.66	-0.01
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.19	12.04	-0.85

NBFC vs. VGMS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NBFC Sharpe Ratio is 2.26, which is comparable to the VGMS Sharpe Ratio of 2.01. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NBFC and VGMS, 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. VGMS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NBFC drawdown since its inception was -3.99%, which is greater than VGMS's maximum drawdown of -2.46%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NBFC and VGMS.

Drawdown Indicators

	NBFC	VGMS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-3.99%	-2.46%	-1.53%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.77%	-2.46%	-0.31%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.25%	-0.18%	-0.07%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.44%	-0.30%	-0.14%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.65%	0.54%	+0.11%

Volatility

NBFC vs. VGMS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Flexible Credit Income ETF (NBFC) is 0.81%, while Vanguard Multi-Sector Income Bond ETF (VGMS) has a volatility of 1.06%. This indicates that NBFC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than VGMS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NBFC	VGMS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.81%	1.06%	-0.25%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.51%	2.64%	-0.13%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.25%	3.27%	-0.02%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.61%	3.24%	+0.37%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.61%	3.24%	+0.37%

NBFC vs. VGMS - Expense Ratio Comparison

NBFC has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is higher than VGMS's 0.30% expense ratio.

Dividends

NBFC vs. VGMS - Dividend Comparison

NBFC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 7.32%, more than VGMS's 5.14% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
NBFC Flexible Credit Income ETF	7.32%	7.71%	3.95%
VGMS Vanguard Multi-Sector Income Bond ETF	5.14%	2.94%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NBFC and VGMS in my portfolio?

NBFC and VGMS have a correlation of 0.80, 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 VGMS?

VGMS has higher volatility (1.06%) compared to NBFC (0.81%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NBFC dropped -3.99% vs VGMS's -2.46%.

Which ETF is better, NBFC or VGMS?

On 1-year performance, NBFC leads with 7.30% vs 6.52% for VGMS. On fees, VGMS is cheaper at 0.30% per year. On volatility, NBFC has been the lower-risk option at 0.81%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NBFC or VGMS?

Over the 1-year period, NBFC has performed better with a 7.30% return vs 6.52%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NBFC or VGMS?

VGMS is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for NBFC.

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

NBFC has the higher dividend yield at 7.32%, compared with 5.14% for VGMS.

What is the main difference between NBFC and VGMS?

They also come from different issuers: Neuberger and Vanguard. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for NBFC and 0.30% for VGMS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

NBFC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.26 vs 2.01), 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.