PCMM vs. FALN

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

PCMM (BondBloxx Private Credit CLO ETF) and FALN (iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - PCMM is a CLO fund actively managed by BondBloxx, while FALN is a High Yield Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg US High Yield Fallen Angel 3% Capped Index. PCMM is actively managed, while FALN is passively managed. Over the past year, PCMM returned 4.45% vs 8.66% for FALN. At a 0.17 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. PCMM charges 0.68%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for FALN.

Performance

PCMM vs. FALN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in BondBloxx Private Credit CLO ETF (PCMM) and iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF (FALN). 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 FALN's 1.56% return.

PCMM

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

FALN

• 1D: -0.22%
• 1M: 0.68%
• YTD: 1.56%
• 6M: 1.36%
• 1Y: 8.66%
• 3Y*: 9.18%
• 5Y*: 3.78%
• 10Y*: —

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

PCMM vs. FALN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
PCMM BondBloxx Private Credit CLO ETF	1.15%	6.30%	0.50%
FALN iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF	1.56%	8.92%	-1.19%

Correlation

The correlation between PCMM and FALN is 0.17, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.17
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 4, 2024	0.17

Return for Risk

PCMM vs. FALN — 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

FALN

FALN Risk / Return Rank: 54
FALN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
FALN Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
FALN Omega Ratio Rank: 60
FALN Calmar Ratio Rank: 44
FALN Martin Ratio Rank: 53

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. FALN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BondBloxx Private Credit CLO ETF (PCMM) and iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF (FALN). 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	FALN	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.16	1.91	-0.76
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.66	2.78	-1.12
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.21	1.37	-0.16
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.07	2.20	-0.12
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	7.21	9.17	-1.96
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. FALN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PCMM Sharpe Ratio is 1.16, which is lower than the FALN Sharpe Ratio of 1.91. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PCMM and FALN, 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	FALN	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.16	1.91	-0.76
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.52	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.08	0.74	+0.34

Drawdowns

PCMM vs. FALN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PCMM drawdown since its inception was -4.32%, smaller than the maximum FALN drawdown of -29.22%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PCMM and FALN.

Drawdown Indicators

	PCMM	FALN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-4.32%	-29.22%	+24.90%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.16%	-3.96%	+1.80%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-5.92%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-18.78%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.41%	-0.26%	-0.15%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.43%	-3.32%	+2.89%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.62%	0.95%	-0.33%

Volatility

PCMM vs. FALN - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for BondBloxx Private Credit CLO ETF (PCMM) is 1.22%, while iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF (FALN) has a volatility of 1.38%. This indicates that PCMM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FALN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PCMM	FALN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.22%	1.38%	-0.16%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.64%	3.64%	-1.00%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.94%	4.54%	-0.60%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	4.97%	7.31%	-2.34%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	4.97%	8.95%	-3.98%

PCMM vs. FALN - Expense Ratio Comparison

PCMM has a 0.68% expense ratio, which is higher than FALN's 0.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

PCMM vs. FALN - Dividend Comparison

PCMM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.62%, more than FALN's 6.46% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
FALN iShares Fallen Angels USD Bond ETF	6.46%	6.31%	6.24%	5.37%	5.08%	3.40%	5.14%	5.35%	5.97%	6.98%	3.55%
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%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PCMM and FALN in my portfolio?

PCMM and FALN have a correlation of 0.17, 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 FALN?

FALN has higher volatility (1.38%) compared to PCMM (1.22%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PCMM dropped -4.32% vs FALN's -29.22%.

Which ETF is better, PCMM or FALN?

On 1-year performance, FALN leads with 8.66% vs 4.45% for PCMM. On fees, FALN is cheaper at 0.25% 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.

Which ETF has performed better, PCMM or FALN?

Over the 1-year period, FALN has performed better with a 8.66% 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 FALN?

FALN is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.68% for PCMM.

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

PCMM has the higher dividend yield at 6.62%, compared with 6.46% for FALN.

What is the main difference between PCMM and FALN?

PCMM is categorized as CLO, while FALN is High Yield Bonds. They also come from different issuers: BondBloxx and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.68% for PCMM and 0.25% for FALN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FALN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.91 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.