NDAA vs. BIL

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

NDAA (Ned Davis Research 360 Dynamic Allocation ETF) and BIL (SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - NDAA is a Diversified Portfolio fund actively managed by Ned Davis Research, while BIL is a Government Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg 1-3 Month U.S. Treasury Bill Index. NDAA is actively managed, while BIL is passively managed. Over the past year, NDAA returned 20.40% vs 3.85% for BIL. At a correlation of -0.07, they often move in opposite directions. NDAA charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.14%/yr for BIL.

Performance

NDAA vs. BIL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Ned Davis Research 360 Dynamic Allocation ETF (NDAA) and SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF (BIL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NDAA achieves a 8.00% return, which is significantly higher than BIL's 1.70% return.

NDAA

• 1D: 0.28%
• 1M: -2.45%
• YTD: 8.00%
• 6M: 7.27%
• 1Y: 20.40%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BIL

• 1D: 0.01%
• 1M: 0.28%
• YTD: 1.70%
• 6M: 1.75%
• 1Y: 3.85%
• 3Y*: 4.61%
• 5Y*: 3.45%
• 10Y*: 2.21%

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

NDAA vs. BIL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
NDAA Ned Davis Research 360 Dynamic Allocation ETF	8.00%	14.00%	-1.48%
BIL SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF	1.70%	4.15%	0.97%

Correlation

The correlation between NDAA and BIL is -0.04, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.04
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 17, 2024	-0.07

Return for Risk

NDAA vs. BIL — Risk / Return Rank

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

NDAA

NDAA Risk / Return Rank: 62
NDAA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
NDAA Sortino Ratio Rank: 59
NDAA Omega Ratio Rank: 61
NDAA Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
NDAA Martin Ratio Rank: 68

BIL

BIL Risk / Return Rank: 100
BIL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 100
BIL Sortino Ratio Rank: 100
BIL Omega Ratio Rank: 100
BIL Calmar Ratio Rank: 100
BIL Martin Ratio Rank: 100

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.

NDAA vs. BIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Ned Davis Research 360 Dynamic Allocation ETF (NDAA) and SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF (BIL). 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.

	NDAA	BIL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.81	19.43	-17.62
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.48	173.17	-170.69
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	87.41	-86.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.69	353.28	-350.60
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.89	2,801.37	-2,790.48

NDAA vs. BIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NDAA Sharpe Ratio is 1.81, which is lower than the BIL Sharpe Ratio of 19.43. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NDAA and BIL, 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

NDAA vs. BIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NDAA drawdown since its inception was -13.50%, which is greater than BIL's maximum drawdown of -0.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NDAA and BIL.

Drawdown Indicators

	NDAA	BIL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.50%	-0.78%	-12.72%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.62%	-0.01%	-7.61%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-0.01%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-0.09%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-0.21%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.26%	0.00%	-3.26%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.96%	-0.26%	-1.70%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.88%	0.00%	+1.88%

Volatility

NDAA vs. BIL - Volatility Comparison

Ned Davis Research 360 Dynamic Allocation ETF (NDAA) has a higher volatility of 4.47% compared to SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF (BIL) at 0.07%. This indicates that NDAA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BIL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	NDAA	BIL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.47%	0.07%	+4.40%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.19%	0.14%	+9.05%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.31%	0.20%	+11.11%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.19%	0.26%	+11.93%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.19%	0.26%	+11.93%

NDAA vs. BIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

NDAA has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than BIL's 0.14% expense ratio.

Dividends

NDAA vs. BIL - Dividend Comparison

NDAA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.51%, less than BIL's 3.85% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
BIL SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF	3.85%	4.13%	5.03%	4.92%	1.35%	0.00%	0.30%	2.05%	1.66%	0.68%	0.07%
NDAA Ned Davis Research 360 Dynamic Allocation ETF	2.51%	2.71%	0.83%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both NDAA and BIL in my portfolio?

NDAA and BIL have a correlation of -0.04, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, NDAA or BIL?

NDAA has higher volatility (4.47%) compared to BIL (0.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NDAA dropped -13.50% vs BIL's -0.78%.

Which ETF is better, NDAA or BIL?

On 1-year performance, NDAA leads with 20.40% vs 3.85% for BIL. On fees, BIL is cheaper at 0.14% per year. On volatility, BIL has been the lower-risk option at 0.07%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NDAA or BIL?

Over the 1-year period, NDAA has performed better with a 20.40% return vs 3.85%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NDAA or BIL?

BIL is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for NDAA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, NDAA or BIL?

BIL has the higher dividend yield at 3.85%, compared with 2.51% for NDAA.

What is the main difference between NDAA and BIL?

NDAA is categorized as Diversified Portfolio, while BIL is Government Bonds. They also come from different issuers: Ned Davis Research and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for NDAA and 0.14% for BIL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (19.43 vs 1.81), 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.