PCCE vs. BIL

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

PCCE (Polen Capital China Growth ETF) and BIL (SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - PCCE is a China Equities fund actively managed by Polen, while BIL is a Government Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg 1-3 Month U.S. Treasury Bill Index. PCCE is actively managed, while BIL is passively managed. Over the past year, PCCE returned 4.95% vs 3.87% for BIL. At a correlation of -0.07, they often move in opposite directions. PCCE charges 1.00%/yr vs 0.14%/yr for BIL.

Performance

PCCE vs. BIL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Polen Capital China Growth ETF (PCCE) 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, PCCE achieves a -1.49% return, which is significantly lower than BIL's 1.49% return.

PCCE

• 1D: -0.49%
• 1M: -0.31%
• YTD: -1.49%
• 6M: -1.95%
• 1Y: 4.95%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BIL

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.27%
• YTD: 1.49%
• 6M: 1.76%
• 1Y: 3.87%
• 3Y*: 4.64%
• 5Y*: 3.41%
• 10Y*: 2.18%

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

PCCE vs. BIL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
PCCE Polen Capital China Growth ETF	-1.49%	23.07%	11.85%
BIL SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF	1.49%	4.15%	4.05%

Correlation

The correlation between PCCE and BIL is -0.10, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.10
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 18, 2024	-0.07

Return for Risk

PCCE vs. BIL — Risk / Return Rank

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

PCCE

PCCE Risk / Return Rank: 13
PCCE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 13
PCCE Sortino Ratio Rank: 13
PCCE Omega Ratio Rank: 13
PCCE Calmar Ratio Rank: 12
PCCE Martin Ratio Rank: 12

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.

PCCE vs. BIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Polen Capital China Growth ETF (PCCE) 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.

	PCCE	BIL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.26	19.71	-19.45
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.51	174.16	-173.65
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.06	87.91	-86.85
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.30	355.35	-355.05
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.68	2,817.77	-2,817.10
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

PCCE vs. BIL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PCCE Sharpe Ratio is 0.26, which is lower than the BIL Sharpe Ratio of 19.71. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PCCE 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	PCCE	BIL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.26	19.71	-19.45
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	13.15	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	8.51	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.57	2.78	-2.21

Drawdowns

PCCE vs. BIL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PCCE drawdown since its inception was -26.38%, which is greater than BIL's maximum drawdown of -0.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PCCE and BIL.

Drawdown Indicators

	PCCE	BIL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-26.38%	-0.78%	-25.60%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.59%	-0.01%	-16.58%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-0.01%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-0.10%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-0.21%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.10%	0.00%	-10.10%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.93%	-0.26%	-9.67%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.33%	0.00%	+7.33%

Volatility

PCCE vs. BIL - Volatility Comparison

Polen Capital China Growth ETF (PCCE) has a higher volatility of 7.84% compared to SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF (BIL) at 0.06%. This indicates that PCCE'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

	PCCE	BIL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.84%	0.06%	+7.78%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.22%	0.13%	+14.09%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.92%	0.20%	+18.72%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	26.19%	0.26%	+25.93%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	26.19%	0.26%	+25.93%

PCCE vs. BIL - Expense Ratio Comparison

PCCE has a 1.00% expense ratio, which is higher than BIL's 0.14% expense ratio.

Dividends

PCCE vs. BIL - Dividend Comparison

PCCE's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.32%, less than BIL's 3.86% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
BIL SPDR Bloomberg 1-3 Month T-Bill ETF	3.86%	4.13%	5.03%	4.92%	1.35%	0.00%	0.30%	2.05%	1.66%	0.68%	0.07%
PCCE Polen Capital China Growth ETF	2.32%	2.29%	1.95%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PCCE and BIL in my portfolio?

PCCE and BIL have a correlation of -0.10, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PCCE or BIL?

PCCE has higher volatility (7.84%) compared to BIL (0.06%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PCCE dropped -26.38% vs BIL's -0.78%.

Which ETF is better, PCCE or BIL?

On 1-year performance, PCCE leads with 4.95% vs 3.87% for BIL. On fees, BIL is cheaper at 0.14% per year. On volatility, BIL has been the lower-risk option at 0.06%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PCCE or BIL?

Over the 1-year period, PCCE has performed better with a 4.95% return vs 3.87%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PCCE or BIL?

BIL is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 1.00% for PCCE.

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

BIL has the higher dividend yield at 3.86%, compared with 2.32% for PCCE.

What is the main difference between PCCE and BIL?

PCCE is categorized as China Equities, while BIL is Government Bonds. They also come from different issuers: Polen and State Street. Their fees differ too: 1.00% for PCCE and 0.14% for BIL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (19.71 vs 0.26), 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.