PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
PAMC vs. FLRT
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

PAMC vs. FLRT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Pacer Lunt MidCap Multi-Factor Alternator ETF (PAMC) and Pacer Aristotle Pacific Floating Rate High Income ETF (FLRT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PAMC achieves a 15.63% return, which is significantly higher than FLRT's 2.39% return.


PAMC

1D
-0.04%
1M
-0.96%
6M
11.11%
YTD
15.63%
1Y
25.97%
3Y*
15.21%
5Y*
9.60%
10Y*
ALL TIME*
15.20%

FLRT

1D
0.06%
1M
0.38%
6M
2.08%
YTD
2.39%
1Y
5.09%
3Y*
7.87%
5Y*
6.08%
10Y*
4.83%
ALL TIME*
4.48%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison


PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)
$4.88M$4.59M$4.78M
$146.26K$127.92K$342.42K

PAMC vs. FLRT - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
PAMC
Pacer Lunt MidCap Multi-Factor Alternator ETF
15.63%1.54%26.20%19.30%-12.15%13.15%34.86%
FLRT
Pacer Aristotle Pacific Floating Rate High Income ETF
2.39%6.24%9.18%14.59%-2.72%3.18%5.30%

Correlation

The correlation between PAMC and FLRT is 0.38, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.38

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.33

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.31

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 25, 2020

0.26

The correlation between PAMC and FLRT shifts across timeframes, from 0.26 (all time) to 0.38 (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

PAMC vs. FLRT — Risk / Return Rank

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

PAMC
PAMC Risk / Return Rank: 5858
Overall Rank
PAMC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5151
Sharpe Ratio Rank
PAMC Sortino Ratio Rank: 5454
Sortino Ratio Rank
PAMC Omega Ratio Rank: 5252
Omega Ratio Rank
PAMC Calmar Ratio Rank: 6767
Calmar Ratio Rank
PAMC Martin Ratio Rank: 6969
Martin Ratio Rank

FLRT
FLRT Risk / Return Rank: 9191
Overall Rank
FLRT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9797
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FLRT Sortino Ratio Rank: 9797
Sortino Ratio Rank
FLRT Omega Ratio Rank: 9797
Omega Ratio Rank
FLRT Calmar Ratio Rank: 8181
Calmar Ratio Rank
FLRT Martin Ratio Rank: 8181
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

PAMC vs. FLRT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Pacer Lunt MidCap Multi-Factor Alternator ETF (PAMC) and Pacer Aristotle Pacific Floating Rate High Income ETF (FLRT). 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.


PAMCFLRTDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-2.19

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-3.26

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.24

1.76

-0.53

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.33

2.89

-0.56

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

8.42

10.59

-2.16

PAMC vs. FLRT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PAMC Sharpe Ratio is 1.26, which is lower than the FLRT Sharpe Ratio of 3.45. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PAMC and FLRT, 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

PAMC vs. FLRT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PAMC drawdown since its inception was -27.04%, which is greater than FLRT's maximum drawdown of -20.96%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PAMC and FLRT.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


PAMCFLRTDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-27.04%

-20.96%

-6.08%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.24%

-1.78%

-8.46%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-26.07%

-2.87%

-23.20%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-26.61%

-7.60%

-19.01%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-20.96%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.30%

0.00%

-3.30%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-7.32%

-1.39%

-5.93%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.83%

0.48%

+2.35%

Volatility

PAMC vs. FLRT - Volatility Comparison

Pacer Lunt MidCap Multi-Factor Alternator ETF (PAMC) has a higher volatility of 4.30% compared to Pacer Aristotle Pacific Floating Rate High Income ETF (FLRT) at 0.29%. This indicates that PAMC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLRT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


PAMCFLRTDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.30%

0.29%

+4.01%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

14.15%

1.19%

+12.96%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

18.94%

1.49%

+17.45%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

20.21%

2.30%

+17.91%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

20.62%

6.09%

+14.53%

PAMC vs. FLRT - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both PAMC and FLRT have an expense ratio of 0.60%.


Dividends

PAMC vs. FLRT - Dividend Comparison

PAMC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.12%, less than FLRT's 6.72% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
FLRT
Pacer Aristotle Pacific Floating Rate High Income ETF
6.72%6.93%7.93%8.40%5.81%3.16%3.52%4.30%3.95%3.20%3.38%3.21%
PAMC
Pacer Lunt MidCap Multi-Factor Alternator ETF
1.12%1.11%0.97%0.69%1.29%0.36%0.30%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


PAMC and FLRT have a correlation of 0.38, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

PAMC has higher volatility (4.30%) compared to FLRT (0.29%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PAMC dropped -27.04% vs FLRT's -20.96%.

On 5-year performance, PAMC leads with 9.60% vs 6.08% for FLRT. Both ETFs have the same 0.60% expense ratio. On volatility, FLRT has been the lower-risk option at 0.29%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, PAMC has performed better with a 9.60% return vs 6.08%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

PAMC and FLRT have the same expense ratio: 0.60% per year.

FLRT has the higher dividend yield at 6.72%, compared with 1.12% for PAMC.

PAMC is categorized as Mid Cap Growth Equities, while FLRT is Bank Loan.

FLRT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.45 vs 1.26), 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 PAMC and FLRT

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