RCLR vs. CEFS

Last updated Jul 10, 2026

RCLR (Reckoner BBB-B CLO Reinvesting ETF) and CEFS (Saba Closed-End Funds ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RCLR 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. RCLR charges 0.60%/yr vs 2.61%/yr for CEFS.

Performance

RCLR vs. CEFS - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

RCLR

• 1D: -0.06%
• 1M: 0.30%
• 6M: —
• YTD: —
• 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)

RCLR vs. CEFS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)
RCLR Reckoner BBB-B CLO Reinvesting ETF	1.03%
CEFS Saba Closed-End Funds ETF	11.22%

Correlation

The correlation between RCLR 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 Feb 11, 2026	0.18

Return for Risk

RCLR vs. CEFS — Risk / Return Rank

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

RCLR

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.

RCLR vs. CEFS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Reckoner BBB-B CLO Reinvesting ETF (RCLR) 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.

	RCLR	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

RCLR vs. CEFS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RCLR drawdown since its inception was -3.77%, smaller than the maximum CEFS drawdown of -38.99%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RCLR and CEFS.

Drawdown Indicators

	RCLR	CEFS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-3.77%	-38.99%	+35.22%
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	-0.06%	-1.59%	+1.53%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.82%	-3.64%	+2.82%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	1.50%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	RCLR	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	3.89%	10.64%	-6.75%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.89%	13.22%	-9.33%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.89%	15.33%	-11.44%

RCLR vs. CEFS - Expense Ratio Comparison

RCLR has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than CEFS's 2.61% expense ratio.

Dividends

RCLR vs. CEFS - Dividend Comparison

RCLR has not paid dividends to shareholders, while CEFS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 7.13%.

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%
RCLR Reckoner BBB-B CLO Reinvesting ETF	0.00%	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 RCLR and CEFS in my portfolio?

RCLR 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, RCLR or CEFS?

On fees, RCLR is cheaper at 0.60% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, RCLR or CEFS?

RCLR is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 2.61% for CEFS.

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

CEFS has the higher dividend yield at 7.13%, compared with 0.00% for RCLR.

What is the main difference between RCLR and CEFS?

RCLR 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: 0.60% for RCLR and 2.61% for CEFS.