PCMM vs. CLOZ

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

PCMM (BondBloxx Private Credit CLO ETF) and CLOZ (Panagram Bbb-B Clo ETF) are both CLO funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, PCMM returned 4.45% vs 6.21% for CLOZ. At a 0.06 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. PCMM charges 0.68%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for CLOZ.

Performance

PCMM vs. CLOZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in BondBloxx Private Credit CLO ETF (PCMM) and Panagram Bbb-B Clo ETF (CLOZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PCMM achieves a 1.15% return, which is significantly lower than CLOZ's 2.53% return.

PCMM

• 1D: 0.06%
• 1M: 0.49%
• YTD: 1.15%
• 6M: 1.71%
• 1Y: 4.45%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CLOZ

• 1D: -0.02%
• 1M: 0.66%
• YTD: 2.53%
• 6M: 3.13%
• 1Y: 6.21%
• 3Y*: 10.62%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

PCMM vs. CLOZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
PCMM BondBloxx Private Credit CLO ETF	1.15%	6.30%	0.50%
CLOZ Panagram Bbb-B Clo ETF	2.53%	5.99%	0.74%

Correlation

The correlation between PCMM and CLOZ is 0.09, 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	0.09
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 4, 2024	0.06

Return for Risk

PCMM vs. CLOZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

PCMM

PCMM Risk / Return Rank: 36
PCMM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 32
PCMM Sortino Ratio Rank: 31
PCMM Omega Ratio Rank: 32
PCMM Calmar Ratio Rank: 42
PCMM Martin Ratio Rank: 44

CLOZ

CLOZ Risk / Return Rank: 47
CLOZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 51
CLOZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 45
CLOZ Omega Ratio Rank: 75
CLOZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 32
CLOZ Martin Ratio Rank: 34

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.

PCMM vs. CLOZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BondBloxx Private Credit CLO ETF (PCMM) 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.

	PCMM	CLOZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.16	1.81	-0.65
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.66	2.31	-0.65
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.21	1.46	-0.24
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.07	1.60	+0.48
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.21	5.31	+1.91
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

PCMM vs. CLOZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PCMM Sharpe Ratio is 1.16, which is lower than the CLOZ Sharpe Ratio of 1.81. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PCMM and CLOZ, 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

	PCMM	CLOZ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.16	1.81	-0.65
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.08	2.77	-1.69

Drawdowns

PCMM vs. CLOZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PCMM drawdown since its inception was -4.32%, smaller than the maximum CLOZ drawdown of -5.32%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PCMM and CLOZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	PCMM	CLOZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-4.32%	-5.32%	+1.00%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.16%	-3.90%	+1.74%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-5.32%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.41%	-0.12%	-0.29%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.43%	-0.38%	-0.05%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.62%	1.17%	-0.55%

Volatility

PCMM vs. CLOZ - Volatility Comparison

BondBloxx Private Credit CLO ETF (PCMM) has a higher volatility of 1.22% compared to Panagram Bbb-B Clo ETF (CLOZ) at 0.42%. This indicates that PCMM'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.

Volatility by Period

	PCMM	CLOZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.22%	0.42%	+0.80%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.64%	3.13%	-0.49%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.94%	3.45%	+0.49%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	4.97%	3.80%	+1.17%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	4.97%	3.80%	+1.17%

PCMM vs. CLOZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

PCMM has a 0.68% expense ratio, which is higher than CLOZ's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

PCMM vs. CLOZ - Dividend Comparison

PCMM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.62%, less than CLOZ's 7.39% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
CLOZ Panagram Bbb-B Clo ETF	7.39%	7.63%	9.09%	8.81%
PCMM BondBloxx Private Credit CLO ETF	6.62%	7.02%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PCMM and CLOZ in my portfolio?

PCMM and CLOZ have a correlation of 0.09, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PCMM or CLOZ?

PCMM has higher volatility (1.22%) compared to CLOZ (0.42%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PCMM dropped -4.32% vs CLOZ's -5.32%.

Which ETF is better, PCMM or CLOZ?

On 1-year performance, CLOZ leads with 6.21% vs 4.45% for PCMM. On fees, CLOZ is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, CLOZ has been the lower-risk option at 0.42%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PCMM or CLOZ?

Over the 1-year period, CLOZ has performed better with a 6.21% return vs 4.45%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PCMM or CLOZ?

CLOZ is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.68% for PCMM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, PCMM or CLOZ?

CLOZ has the higher dividend yield at 7.39%, compared with 6.62% for PCMM.

What is the main difference between PCMM and CLOZ?

They also come from different issuers: BondBloxx and Panagram. Their fees differ too: 0.68% for PCMM and 0.50% for CLOZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CLOZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.81 vs 1.16), 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.