PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
NUSA vs. FLDR
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

NUSA vs. FLDR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Nuveen ESG 1-5 Year U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF (NUSA) and Fidelity Low Duration Bond Factor ETF (FLDR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NUSA achieves a 0.67% return, which is significantly lower than FLDR's 1.78% return.


NUSA

1D
0.09%
1M
0.37%
YTD
0.67%
6M
0.85%
1Y
3.34%
3Y*
4.46%
5Y*
1.62%
10Y*

FLDR

1D
0.06%
1M
0.49%
YTD
1.78%
6M
1.90%
1Y
4.62%
3Y*
5.38%
5Y*
3.75%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

NUSA vs. FLDR - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
NUSA
Nuveen ESG 1-5 Year U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF
0.67%5.89%3.52%5.19%-5.91%-1.04%4.85%5.62%2.09%
FLDR
Fidelity Low Duration Bond Factor ETF
1.78%5.41%5.71%6.32%-0.33%-0.18%2.01%4.52%0.84%

Correlation

The correlation between NUSA and FLDR is 0.64, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.64

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.62

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.57

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 14, 2018

0.47

The correlation between NUSA and FLDR shifts across timeframes, from 0.47 (all time) to 0.64 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

NUSA vs. FLDR — Risk / Return Rank

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

NUSA
NUSA Risk / Return Rank: 6565
Overall Rank
NUSA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6464
Sharpe Ratio Rank
NUSA Sortino Ratio Rank: 7373
Sortino Ratio Rank
NUSA Omega Ratio Rank: 7070
Omega Ratio Rank
NUSA Calmar Ratio Rank: 6060
Calmar Ratio Rank
NUSA Martin Ratio Rank: 5757
Martin Ratio Rank

FLDR
FLDR Risk / Return Rank: 9898
Overall Rank
FLDR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9999
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FLDR Sortino Ratio Rank: 9999
Sortino Ratio Rank
FLDR Omega Ratio Rank: 9999
Omega Ratio Rank
FLDR Calmar Ratio Rank: 9797
Calmar Ratio Rank
FLDR Martin Ratio Rank: 9898
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.

NUSA vs. FLDR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Nuveen ESG 1-5 Year U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF (NUSA) and Fidelity Low Duration Bond Factor ETF (FLDR). 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.


NUSAFLDRDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-3.89

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-6.78

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.36

2.65

-1.28

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.62

9.92

-7.30

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

8.86

67.62

-58.77

NUSA vs. FLDR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NUSA Sharpe Ratio is 1.84, which is lower than the FLDR Sharpe Ratio of 5.73. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NUSA and FLDR, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

NUSA vs. FLDR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NUSA drawdown since its inception was -9.44%, smaller than the maximum FLDR drawdown of -12.23%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NUSA and FLDR.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


NUSAFLDRDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-9.44%

-12.23%

+2.79%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-1.28%

-0.47%

-0.81%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-1.62%

-0.76%

-0.86%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-9.44%

-2.33%

-7.11%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.27%

0.00%

-0.27%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-1.64%

-0.35%

-1.29%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.38%

0.07%

+0.31%

Volatility

NUSA vs. FLDR - Volatility Comparison

Nuveen ESG 1-5 Year U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF (NUSA) has a higher volatility of 0.58% compared to Fidelity Low Duration Bond Factor ETF (FLDR) at 0.19%. This indicates that NUSA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLDR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


NUSAFLDRDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

0.58%

0.19%

+0.39%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

1.42%

0.60%

+0.82%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.82%

0.81%

+1.01%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

2.81%

1.21%

+1.60%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

2.72%

5.24%

-2.52%

NUSA vs. FLDR - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both NUSA and FLDR have an expense ratio of 0.15%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.


Dividends

NUSA vs. FLDR - Dividend Comparison

NUSA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.85%, less than FLDR's 4.41% yield.


PositionTTM202520242023202220212020201920182017
FLDR
Fidelity Low Duration Bond Factor ETF
4.41%4.66%5.50%5.28%2.09%0.51%1.22%2.69%1.38%0.00%
NUSA
Nuveen ESG 1-5 Year U.S. Aggregate Bond ETF
3.85%3.83%3.93%3.54%2.44%2.16%2.51%2.85%3.22%2.20%

Frequently Asked Questions


NUSA and FLDR have a correlation of 0.64, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

NUSA has higher volatility (0.58%) compared to FLDR (0.19%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NUSA dropped -9.44% vs FLDR's -12.23%.

On 5-year performance, FLDR leads with 3.75% vs 1.62% for NUSA. Both ETFs have the same 0.15% expense ratio. On volatility, FLDR has been the lower-risk option at 0.19%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, FLDR has performed better with a 3.75% return vs 1.62%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

NUSA and FLDR have the same expense ratio: 0.15% per year.

FLDR has the higher dividend yield at 4.41%, compared with 3.85% for NUSA.

NUSA tracks ICE BofA Enhanced Yield US Broad Bond (1-5 Y), while FLDR tracks Fidelity Low Duration Investment Grade Factor Index. They also come from different issuers: Nuveen and Fidelity.

FLDR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (5.73 vs 1.84), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for NUSA and FLDR

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer