RCLO vs. CEFS

Last updated Jul 10, 2026

RCLO (Reckoner BBB-B CLO ETF) and CEFS (Saba Closed-End Funds ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RCLO is a Actively Managed fund actively managed by Reckoner, while CEFS is a Event Driven fund actively managed by Exchange Traded Concepts. Both are actively managed. At a 0.18 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. RCLO charges 0.50%/yr vs 2.61%/yr for CEFS.

Performance

RCLO vs. CEFS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Reckoner BBB-B CLO ETF (RCLO) and Saba Closed-End Funds ETF (CEFS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RCLO achieves a 2.22% return, which is significantly lower than CEFS's 13.86% return.

RCLO

• 1D: -0.07%
• 1M: 0.22%
• 6M: 2.02%
• YTD: 2.22%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CEFS

• 1D: 1.13%
• 1M: 1.39%
• 6M: 14.21%
• YTD: 13.86%
• 1Y: 22.27%
• 3Y*: 20.75%
• 5Y*: 13.76%
• 10Y*: —

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

RCLO vs. CEFS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
RCLO Reckoner BBB-B CLO ETF	2.22%	1.39%
CEFS Saba Closed-End Funds ETF	13.86%	3.38%

Correlation

The correlation between RCLO and CEFS is 0.18, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 22, 2025	0.18

Return for Risk

RCLO vs. CEFS — Risk / Return Rank

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

RCLO

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

CEFS

CEFS Risk / Return Rank: 85
CEFS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
CEFS Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
CEFS Omega Ratio Rank: 83
CEFS Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
CEFS Martin Ratio Rank: 88

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.

RCLO vs. CEFS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Reckoner BBB-B CLO ETF (RCLO) and Saba Closed-End Funds ETF (CEFS). 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.

	RCLO	CEFS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	—	2.10	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	—	3.04	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	—	1.39	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	—	3.94	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	—	14.91	—

Drawdowns

RCLO vs. CEFS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RCLO drawdown since its inception was -3.70%, smaller than the maximum CEFS drawdown of -38.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RCLO and CEFS.

Drawdown Indicators

	RCLO	CEFS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-3.70%	-38.99%	+35.29%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-5.67%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-13.37%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-16.85%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.07%	-1.59%	+1.52%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.45%	-3.64%	+3.19%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	1.50%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	RCLO	CEFS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	4.09%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	9.16%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.97%	10.64%	-7.67%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	2.97%	13.22%	-10.25%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	2.97%	15.33%	-12.36%

RCLO vs. CEFS - Expense Ratio Comparison

RCLO has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than CEFS's 2.61% expense ratio.

Dividends

RCLO vs. CEFS - Dividend Comparison

RCLO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.74%, less than CEFS's 7.13% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CEFS Saba Closed-End Funds ETF	7.13%	7.84%	8.79%	9.20%	11.32%	10.73%	8.61%	8.10%	10.43%	5.02%
RCLO Reckoner BBB-B CLO ETF	4.74%	1.32%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RCLO and CEFS in my portfolio?

RCLO and CEFS have a correlation of 0.18, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, RCLO or CEFS?

On fees, RCLO is cheaper at 0.50% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, RCLO or CEFS?

RCLO is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 2.61% for CEFS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RCLO or CEFS?

CEFS has the higher dividend yield at 7.13%, compared with 4.74% for RCLO.

What is the main difference between RCLO and CEFS?

RCLO is categorized as Actively Managed, while CEFS is Event Driven. They also come from different issuers: Reckoner and Exchange Traded Concepts. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for RCLO and 2.61% for CEFS.