PYLD vs. BINC

Last updated Jun 12, 2026

PYLD (PIMCO Multisector Bond Active Exchange-Traded Fund) and BINC (iShares Flexible Income Active ETF) are both Multisector Bonds funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, PYLD returned 7.03% vs 5.54% for BINC. A 0.79 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. PYLD charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for BINC.

Performance

PYLD vs. BINC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in PIMCO Multisector Bond Active Exchange-Traded Fund (PYLD) and iShares Flexible Income Active ETF (BINC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PYLD achieves a 1.18% return, which is significantly higher than BINC's 1.00% return.

PYLD

• 1D: 0.50%
• 1M: 0.61%
• YTD: 1.18%
• 6M: 1.67%
• 1Y: 7.03%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BINC

• 1D: 0.31%
• 1M: 0.30%
• YTD: 1.00%
• 6M: 1.45%
• 1Y: 5.54%
• 3Y*: 6.96%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

PYLD vs. BINC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
PYLD PIMCO Multisector Bond Active Exchange-Traded Fund	1.18%	9.57%	7.69%	5.46%
BINC iShares Flexible Income Active ETF	1.00%	7.57%	5.76%	6.59%

Correlation

The correlation between PYLD and BINC is 0.88, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.88
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 22, 2023	0.79

The correlation between PYLD and BINC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.79 to 0.88 - a consistent structural relationship.

PYLD vs. BINC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PYLD	BINC
Energy	100.0%	0.0%
Basic Materials	-	0.0%
Communication Services	-	-0.0%
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Financial Services	-	0.1%
Healthcare	-	-0.0%
Industrials	-	0.0%
Real Estate	-	-0.0%
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

PYLD vs. BINC — Risk / Return Rank

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

PYLD

PYLD Risk / Return Rank: 76
PYLD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
PYLD Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
PYLD Omega Ratio Rank: 88
PYLD Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
PYLD Martin Ratio Rank: 66

BINC

BINC Risk / Return Rank: 74
BINC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 88
BINC Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
BINC Omega Ratio Rank: 89
BINC Calmar Ratio Rank: 49
BINC Martin Ratio Rank: 56

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.

PYLD vs. BINC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for PIMCO Multisector Bond Active Exchange-Traded Fund (PYLD) and iShares Flexible Income Active ETF (BINC). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	PYLD	BINC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.32	2.42	-0.10
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.42	3.53	-0.11
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.46	1.48	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.18	2.07	+0.11
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.86	8.07	+1.79

PYLD vs. BINC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PYLD Sharpe Ratio is 2.32, which is comparable to the BINC Sharpe Ratio of 2.42. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PYLD and BINC, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

PYLD vs. BINC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PYLD drawdown since its inception was -4.52%, which is greater than BINC's maximum drawdown of -2.69%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PYLD and BINC.

Drawdown Indicators

	PYLD	BINC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-4.52%	-2.69%	-1.83%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-3.25%	-2.69%	-0.56%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-2.69%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.21%	-0.39%	+0.18%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.65%	-0.36%	-0.29%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.71%	0.69%	+0.02%

Volatility

PYLD vs. BINC - Volatility Comparison

PIMCO Multisector Bond Active Exchange-Traded Fund (PYLD) has a higher volatility of 1.24% compared to iShares Flexible Income Active ETF (BINC) at 0.74%. This indicates that PYLD's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BINC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PYLD	BINC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.24%	0.74%	+0.50%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.56%	1.87%	+0.69%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.05%	2.30%	+0.75%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.99%	3.00%	+0.99%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.99%	3.00%	+0.99%

PYLD vs. BINC - Expense Ratio Comparison

PYLD has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than BINC's 0.40% expense ratio.

Dividends

PYLD vs. BINC - Dividend Comparison

PYLD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.28%, more than BINC's 5.86% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BINC iShares Flexible Income Active ETF	5.86%	5.86%	6.14%	3.13%
PYLD PIMCO Multisector Bond Active Exchange-Traded Fund	6.28%	6.21%	6.40%	2.72%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PYLD and BINC in my portfolio?

PYLD and BINC have a correlation of 0.88, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PYLD or BINC?

PYLD has higher volatility (1.24%) compared to BINC (0.74%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PYLD dropped -4.52% vs BINC's -2.69%.

Which ETF is better, PYLD or BINC?

On 1-year performance, PYLD leads with 7.03% vs 5.54% for BINC. On fees, BINC is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, BINC has been the lower-risk option at 0.74%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PYLD or BINC?

Over the 1-year period, PYLD has performed better with a 7.03% return vs 5.54%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PYLD or BINC?

BINC is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for PYLD.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, PYLD or BINC?

PYLD has the higher dividend yield at 6.28%, compared with 5.86% for BINC.

What is the main difference between PYLD and BINC?

They also come from different issuers: PIMCO and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for PYLD and 0.40% for BINC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BINC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.42 vs 2.32), 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.