PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
NEA vs. CLOZ
Performance
Return for Risk
Dividends
Drawdowns
Volatility

Performance

NEA vs. CLOZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Nuveen AMT-Free Quality Municipal Income Fund (NEA) and Panagram Bbb-B Clo ETF (CLOZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading graphics...

NEA vs. CLOZ - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023
NEA
Nuveen AMT-Free Quality Municipal Income Fund
-0.17%11.31%9.50%-1.21%
CLOZ
Panagram Bbb-B Clo ETF
-1.42%5.99%11.85%14.92%

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NEA achieves a -0.17% return, which is significantly higher than CLOZ's -1.42% return.


NEA

1D
1.60%
1M
-3.55%
YTD
-0.17%
6M
3.40%
1Y
9.39%
3Y*
7.48%
5Y*
0.39%
10Y*
3.17%

CLOZ

1D
0.51%
1M
0.79%
YTD
-1.42%
6M
-0.20%
1Y
4.67%
3Y*
9.95%
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

NEA vs. CLOZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

NEA
NEA Risk / Return Rank: 6666
Overall Rank
NEA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6969
Sharpe Ratio Rank
NEA Sortino Ratio Rank: 6060
Sortino Ratio Rank
NEA Omega Ratio Rank: 6262
Omega Ratio Rank
NEA Calmar Ratio Rank: 6565
Calmar Ratio Rank
NEA Martin Ratio Rank: 7676
Martin Ratio Rank

CLOZ
CLOZ Risk / Return Rank: 4646
Overall Rank
CLOZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4444
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CLOZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 3838
Sortino Ratio Rank
CLOZ Omega Ratio Rank: 6464
Omega Ratio Rank
CLOZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 4545
Calmar Ratio Rank
CLOZ Martin Ratio Rank: 4040
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

NEA vs. CLOZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Nuveen AMT-Free Quality Municipal Income Fund (NEA) and Panagram Bbb-B Clo ETF (CLOZ). 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.


NEACLOZDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

0.83

0.85

-0.03

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

1.20

1.13

+0.07

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.17

1.24

-0.07

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

1.16

1.23

-0.07

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

4.81

3.89

+0.92

NEA vs. CLOZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NEA Sharpe Ratio is 0.83, which is comparable to the CLOZ Sharpe Ratio of 0.85. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NEA and CLOZ, offering insights into how both investments have performed under varying market conditions. These values are calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months.


Loading graphics...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


NEACLOZDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.83

0.85

-0.03

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.04

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.27

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.31

2.55

-2.24

Correlation

The correlation between NEA and CLOZ is 0.01, which is considered to be low. This implies their price changes are not closely related. A low correlation is generally favorable for portfolio diversification, as it helps to reduce overall risk by spreading it across multiple assets with different performance patterns.


Dividends

NEA vs. CLOZ - Dividend Comparison

NEA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 7.37%, less than CLOZ's 7.93% yield.


TTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
NEA
Nuveen AMT-Free Quality Municipal Income Fund
7.37%7.36%6.63%3.95%5.49%4.50%4.45%4.46%5.40%5.33%5.70%5.71%
CLOZ
Panagram Bbb-B Clo ETF
7.93%7.63%9.09%8.81%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Drawdowns

NEA vs. CLOZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NEA drawdown since its inception was -43.83%, which is greater than CLOZ's maximum drawdown of -5.32%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NEA and CLOZ.


Loading graphics...

Drawdown Indicators


NEACLOZDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-43.83%

-5.32%

-38.51%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.37%

-3.90%

-4.47%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-36.57%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-36.57%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-7.17%

-2.66%

-4.51%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.03%

-0.37%

-7.66%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.03%

1.23%

+0.80%

Volatility

NEA vs. CLOZ - Volatility Comparison

Nuveen AMT-Free Quality Municipal Income Fund (NEA) has a higher volatility of 5.19% compared to Panagram Bbb-B Clo ETF (CLOZ) at 1.37%. This indicates that NEA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CLOZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading graphics...

Volatility by Period


NEACLOZDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

5.19%

1.37%

+3.82%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

7.19%

2.94%

+4.25%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

11.41%

5.50%

+5.91%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

11.19%

3.83%

+7.36%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

11.68%

3.83%

+7.85%