PCMM vs. EFC

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

PCMM (BondBloxx Private Credit CLO ETF) is CLO fund actively managed by BondBloxx, while EFC (Ellington Financial Inc.) is a stock. Over the past year, PCMM returned 4.45% vs 20.29% for EFC. At a 0.12 correlation, their price movements are largely independent.

Performance

PCMM vs. EFC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in BondBloxx Private Credit CLO ETF (PCMM) and Ellington Financial Inc. (EFC). 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 EFC's 3.50% return.

PCMM

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

EFC

• 1D: -1.76%
• 1M: 3.68%
• YTD: 3.50%
• 6M: 3.72%
• 1Y: 20.29%
• 3Y*: 14.78%
• 5Y*: 5.51%
• 10Y*: 9.08%

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

PCMM vs. EFC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
PCMM BondBloxx Private Credit CLO ETF	1.15%	6.30%	0.50%
EFC Ellington Financial Inc.	3.50%	26.13%	-0.31%

Correlation

The correlation between PCMM and EFC is 0.10, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.10
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 4, 2024	0.12

Return for Risk

PCMM vs. EFC — 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

EFC

EFC Risk / Return Rank: 69
EFC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
EFC Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
EFC Omega Ratio Rank: 67
EFC Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
EFC Martin Ratio Rank: 69

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. EFC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BondBloxx Private Credit CLO ETF (PCMM) and Ellington Financial Inc. (EFC). 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	EFC	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.16	1.16	0.00
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.66	1.70	-0.04
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.21	1.21	0.00
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.07	1.15	+0.92
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	7.21	3.74	+3.47
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. EFC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PCMM Sharpe Ratio is 1.16, which is comparable to the EFC Sharpe Ratio of 1.16. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PCMM and EFC, 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	EFC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.16	1.16	0.00
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.23	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.22	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.08	0.26	+0.82

Drawdowns

PCMM vs. EFC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PCMM drawdown since its inception was -4.32%, smaller than the maximum EFC drawdown of -79.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PCMM and EFC.

Drawdown Indicators

	PCMM	EFC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-4.32%	-79.08%	+74.76%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.16%	-17.71%	+15.55%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-18.86%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-34.19%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-79.08%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.41%	-1.76%	+1.35%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.43%	-9.95%	+9.52%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.62%	5.43%	-4.81%

Volatility

PCMM vs. EFC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for BondBloxx Private Credit CLO ETF (PCMM) is 1.22%, while Ellington Financial Inc. (EFC) has a volatility of 4.98%. This indicates that PCMM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than EFC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PCMM	EFC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.22%	4.98%	-3.76%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.64%	13.05%	-10.41%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.94%	17.62%	-13.68%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	4.97%	23.96%	-18.99%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	4.97%	42.26%	-37.29%

Dividends

PCMM vs. EFC - Dividend Comparison

PCMM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.62%, less than EFC's 11.68% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EFC Ellington Financial Inc.	11.68%	11.49%	13.20%	14.16%	14.55%	9.60%	8.49%	9.87%	10.70%	12.13%	12.56%	14.60%
PCMM BondBloxx Private Credit CLO ETF	6.62%	7.02%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PCMM and EFC in my portfolio?

PCMM and EFC 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, PCMM or EFC?

EFC has higher volatility (4.98%) compared to PCMM (1.22%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PCMM dropped -4.32% vs EFC's -79.08%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PCMM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.16 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.