RAAA vs. CLOZ

Last updated Jul 31, 2026

RAAA (Reckoner Leveraged AAA CLO ETF) and CLOZ (Eldridge BBB-B CLO ETF) are both CLO funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, RAAA returned 5.39% vs 5.82% for CLOZ. Their 0.01 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. RAAA charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for CLOZ.

Performance

RAAA vs. CLOZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Reckoner Leveraged AAA CLO ETF (RAAA) and Eldridge 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, RAAA achieves a 3.09% return, which is significantly lower than CLOZ's 3.27% return.

RAAA

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 0.35%
• 6M: 2.39%
• YTD: 3.09%
• 1Y: 5.39%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 5.37%

CLOZ

• 1D: 0.17%
• 1M: 0.47%
• 6M: 2.23%
• YTD: 3.27%
• 1Y: 5.82%
• 3Y*: 9.21%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 10.22%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
CLOZ Eldridge BBB-B CLO ETF	$9.00M	$11.45M	$8.57M
RAAA Reckoner Leveraged AAA CLO ETF	$54.87K	$111.83K	$107.84K

RAAA vs. CLOZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
RAAA Reckoner Leveraged AAA CLO ETF	3.09%	2.52%
CLOZ Eldridge BBB-B CLO ETF	3.27%	2.93%

Correlation

The correlation between RAAA and CLOZ is 0.01, meaning there was essentially no consistent relationship between their historical price movements. Each responded to its own set of market drivers.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.01
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 9, 2025	0.01

Return for Risk

RAAA vs. CLOZ — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

RAAA

RAAA Risk / Return Rank: 98
RAAA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 98
RAAA Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
RAAA Omega Ratio Rank: 98
RAAA Calmar Ratio Rank: 97
RAAA Martin Ratio Rank: 98

CLOZ

CLOZ Risk / Return Rank: 65
CLOZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 76
CLOZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
CLOZ Omega Ratio Rank: 91
CLOZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 44
CLOZ Martin Ratio Rank: 46

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

RAAA vs. CLOZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Reckoner Leveraged AAA CLO ETF (RAAA) and Eldridge 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.

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.

	RAAA	CLOZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	4.08	1.67	+2.41
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	5.89	2.14	+3.75
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	2.13	1.41	+0.72
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	7.64	1.50	+6.14
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	42.70	4.97	+37.74

RAAA vs. CLOZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RAAA Sharpe Ratio is 4.08, which is higher than the CLOZ Sharpe Ratio of 1.67. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RAAA 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.

Drawdowns

RAAA vs. CLOZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RAAA drawdown since its inception was -0.71%, smaller than the maximum CLOZ drawdown of -5.32%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RAAA and CLOZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	RAAA	CLOZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-0.71%	-5.32%	+4.61%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.71%	-3.90%	+3.19%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-5.32%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.05%	-0.37%	+0.32%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.13%	1.17%	-1.04%

Volatility

RAAA vs. CLOZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Reckoner Leveraged AAA CLO ETF (RAAA) is 0.14%, while Eldridge BBB-B CLO ETF (CLOZ) has a volatility of 0.69%. This indicates that RAAA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than CLOZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RAAA	CLOZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.14%	0.69%	-0.55%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	0.95%	3.20%	-2.25%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.33%	3.50%	-2.17%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	1.30%	3.75%	-2.45%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	1.30%	3.75%	-2.45%

RAAA vs. CLOZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

RAAA has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is lower than CLOZ's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

RAAA vs. CLOZ - Dividend Comparison

RAAA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.20%, less than CLOZ's 7.30% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
CLOZ Eldridge BBB-B CLO ETF	7.30%	7.63%	9.09%	8.81%
RAAA Reckoner Leveraged AAA CLO ETF	5.20%	2.70%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RAAA and CLOZ in my portfolio?

RAAA and CLOZ have a correlation of 0.01, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RAAA or CLOZ?

CLOZ has higher volatility (0.69%) compared to RAAA (0.14%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RAAA dropped -0.71% vs CLOZ's -5.32%.

Which ETF is better, RAAA or CLOZ?

On 1-year performance, CLOZ leads with 5.82% vs 5.39% for RAAA. On fees, RAAA is cheaper at 0.30% per year. On volatility, RAAA has been the lower-risk option at 0.14%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RAAA or CLOZ?

Over the 1-year period, CLOZ has performed better with a 5.82% return vs 5.39%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RAAA or CLOZ?

RAAA is cheaper with a 0.30% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for CLOZ.

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

CLOZ has the higher dividend yield at 7.30%, compared with 5.20% for RAAA.

What is the main difference between RAAA and CLOZ?

They also come from different issuers: Reckoner and Eldridge. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for RAAA and 0.50% for CLOZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RAAA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.08 vs 1.67), 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.