NBGX vs. NBFC

Last updated Aug 1, 2026

NBGX (Neuberger Growth ETF) and NBFC (Flexible Credit Income ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - NBGX is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by Neuberger, while NBFC is a Multisector Bonds fund actively managed by Neuberger. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, NBGX returned 9.50% vs 4.93% for NBFC. Their 0.52 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. NBGX charges 0.44%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for NBFC.

Performance

NBGX vs. NBFC - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NBGX achieves a 3.18% return, which is significantly higher than NBFC's 1.39% return.

NBGX

• 1D: 1.50%
• 1M: -0.85%
• 6M: 4.46%
• YTD: 3.18%
• 1Y: 9.50%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 11.18%

NBFC

• 1D: 0.07%
• 1M: -0.52%
• 6M: 0.65%
• YTD: 1.39%
• 1Y: 4.93%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 7.47%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
NBFC Flexible Credit Income ETF	$26.03K	$56.02K	$43.83K
NBGX Neuberger Growth ETF	$14.58K	$19.78K	$15.07K

NBGX vs. NBFC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
NBGX Neuberger Growth ETF	3.18%	16.40%	-1.22%
NBFC Flexible Credit Income ETF	1.39%	9.63%	0.17%

Correlation

The correlation between NBGX and NBFC is 0.53, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.53
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 19, 2024	0.52

The correlation between NBGX and NBFC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.52 to 0.53 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

NBGX vs. NBFC — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

NBGX

NBGX Risk / Return Rank: 22
NBGX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 23
NBGX Sortino Ratio Rank: 22
NBGX Omega Ratio Rank: 22
NBGX Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
NBGX Martin Ratio Rank: 23

NBFC

NBFC Risk / Return Rank: 71
NBFC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
NBFC Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
NBFC Omega Ratio Rank: 78
NBFC Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
NBFC Martin Ratio Rank: 67

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

NBGX vs. NBFC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Neuberger Growth ETF (NBGX) and Flexible Credit Income ETF (NBFC). 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.

	NBGX	NBFC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.50	1.70	-1.20
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.79	2.61	-1.81
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.10	1.33	-0.23
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.52	1.97	-1.46
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.69	8.16	-6.47

NBGX vs. NBFC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NBGX Sharpe Ratio is 0.50, which is lower than the NBFC Sharpe Ratio of 1.70. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NBGX and NBFC, 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

NBGX vs. NBFC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NBGX drawdown since its inception was -21.55%, which is greater than NBFC's maximum drawdown of -3.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NBGX and NBFC.

Drawdown Indicators

	NBGX	NBFC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.55%	-3.99%	-17.56%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.86%	-2.77%	-12.09%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.66%	-0.66%	-3.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.85%	-0.43%	-3.42%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.53%	0.67%	+3.86%

Volatility

NBGX vs. NBFC - Volatility Comparison

Neuberger Growth ETF (NBGX) has a higher volatility of 4.72% compared to Flexible Credit Income ETF (NBFC) at 0.73%. This indicates that NBGX's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than NBFC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NBGX	NBFC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.72%	0.73%	+3.99%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.09%	2.56%	+9.53%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.32%	3.22%	+12.10%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.79%	3.56%	+16.23%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.79%	3.56%	+16.23%

NBGX vs. NBFC - Expense Ratio Comparison

NBGX has a 0.44% expense ratio, which is higher than NBFC's 0.40% expense ratio.

Dividends

NBGX vs. NBFC - Dividend Comparison

NBGX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.40%, less than NBFC's 7.27% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
NBFC Flexible Credit Income ETF	7.27%	7.71%	3.95%
NBGX Neuberger Growth ETF	0.40%	0.41%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NBGX and NBFC in my portfolio?

NBGX and NBFC have a correlation of 0.53, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NBGX or NBFC?

NBGX has higher volatility (4.72%) compared to NBFC (0.73%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NBGX dropped -21.55% vs NBFC's -3.99%.

Which ETF is better, NBGX or NBFC?

On 1-year performance, NBGX leads with 9.50% vs 4.93% for NBFC. On fees, NBFC is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, NBFC has been the lower-risk option at 0.73%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NBGX or NBFC?

Over the 1-year period, NBGX has performed better with a 9.50% return vs 4.93%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NBGX or NBFC?

NBFC is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.44% for NBGX.

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

NBFC has the higher dividend yield at 7.27%, compared with 0.40% for NBGX.

What is the main difference between NBGX and NBFC?

NBGX is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while NBFC is Multisector Bonds. Their fees differ too: 0.44% for NBGX and 0.40% for NBFC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

NBFC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.70 vs 0.50), 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.