PCMM vs. FAAR
PCMM (BondBloxx Private Credit CLO ETF) and FAAR (First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - PCMM is a CLO fund actively managed by BondBloxx, while FAAR is a Commodities fund actively managed by First Trust. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, PCMM returned 4.45% vs 40.73% for FAAR. At a correlation of -0.00, they often move in opposite directions. PCMM charges 0.68%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for FAAR.
Performance
PCMM vs. FAAR - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, PCMM achieves a 1.15% return, which is significantly lower than FAAR's 25.73% return.
PCMM
- 1D
- 0.06%
- 1M
- 0.49%
- YTD
- 1.15%
- 6M
- 1.71%
- 1Y
- 4.45%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
FAAR
- 1D
- 0.01%
- 1M
- -0.79%
- YTD
- 25.73%
- 6M
- 23.17%
- 1Y
- 40.73%
- 3Y*
- 11.79%
- 5Y*
- 8.07%
- 10Y*
- 5.17%
PCMM vs. FAAR - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
PCMM BondBloxx Private Credit CLO ETF | 1.15% | 6.30% | 0.50% |
FAAR First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF | 25.73% | 8.07% | 0.77% |
Correlation
The correlation between PCMM and FAAR is -0.10, 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 | -0.10 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 4, 2024 | -0.00 |
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
PCMM vs. FAAR — Risk / Return Rank
PCMM
FAAR
PCMM vs. FAAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BondBloxx Private Credit CLO ETF (PCMM) and First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF (FAAR). 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 | FAAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.88 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.57 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.21 | 1.52 | -0.31 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.07 | 8.44 | -6.37 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 7.21 | 23.64 | -16.42 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| PCMM | FAAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.16 | 3.04 | -1.88 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.62 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.45 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 1.08 | 0.45 | +0.63 |
Drawdowns
PCMM vs. FAAR - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum PCMM drawdown since its inception was -4.32%, smaller than the maximum FAAR drawdown of -18.03%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PCMM and FAAR.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| PCMM | FAAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -4.32% | -18.03% | +13.71% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -2.16% | -4.85% | +2.69% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -11.54% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -18.03% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -18.03% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.41% | -1.11% | +0.70% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.43% | -7.85% | +7.42% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 0.62% | 1.73% | -1.11% |
Volatility
PCMM vs. FAAR - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for BondBloxx Private Credit CLO ETF (PCMM) is 1.22%, while First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF (FAAR) has a volatility of 2.44%. This indicates that PCMM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FAAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| PCMM | FAAR | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.22% | 2.44% | -1.22% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 2.64% | 9.72% | -7.08% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.94% | 13.48% | -9.54% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 4.97% | 13.02% | -8.05% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 4.97% | 11.51% | -6.54% |
PCMM vs. FAAR - Expense Ratio Comparison
PCMM has a 0.68% expense ratio, which is lower than FAAR's 0.95% expense ratio.
Dividends
PCMM vs. FAAR - Dividend Comparison
PCMM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.62%, less than FAAR's 9.15% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FAAR First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF | 9.15% | 11.63% | 3.45% | 3.20% | 5.82% | 6.49% | 3.05% | 1.02% | 0.58% | 2.83% |
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% |
Frequently Asked Questions
PCMM and FAAR 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.
FAAR has higher volatility (2.44%) compared to PCMM (1.22%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PCMM dropped -4.32% vs FAAR's -18.03%.
On 1-year performance, FAAR leads with 40.73% vs 4.45% for PCMM. On fees, PCMM is cheaper at 0.68% per year. On volatility, PCMM has been the lower-risk option at 1.22%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, FAAR has performed better with a 40.73% return vs 4.45%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
PCMM is cheaper with a 0.68% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for FAAR.
FAAR has the higher dividend yield at 9.15%, compared with 6.62% for PCMM.
PCMM is categorized as CLO, while FAAR is Commodities. They also come from different issuers: BondBloxx and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.68% for PCMM and 0.95% for FAAR.
FAAR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.04 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.
Find the right allocation for PCMM and FAAR
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