RFIX vs. ILS
RFIX (Simplify Bond Bull ETF) and ILS (Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF) are both Nontraditional Bonds funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, RFIX returned -12.67% vs 7.47% for ILS. At a correlation of -0.04, they often move in opposite directions. RFIX charges 0.50%/yr vs 1.58%/yr for ILS.
Performance
RFIX vs. ILS - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, RFIX achieves a 3.18% return, which is significantly higher than ILS's 3.01% return.
RFIX
- 1D
- -2.34%
- 1M
- -6.52%
- 6M
- 3.23%
- YTD
- 3.18%
- 1Y
- -12.67%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
ILS
- 1D
- -0.04%
- 1M
- 1.03%
- 6M
- 3.07%
- YTD
- 3.01%
- 1Y
- 7.47%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
RFIX vs. ILS - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
RFIX Simplify Bond Bull ETF | 3.18% | -29.61% |
ILS Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF | 3.01% | 3.54% |
Correlation
The correlation between RFIX and ILS is -0.07, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.07 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 1, 2025 | -0.04 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
RFIX vs. ILS — Risk / Return Rank
RFIX
ILS
RFIX vs. ILS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Simplify Bond Bull ETF (RFIX) and Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF (ILS). 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.
| RFIX | ILS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -3.46 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -5.46 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.95 | 1.69 | -0.74 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.59 | 13.56 | -14.15 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.08 | 50.90 | -51.98 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
RFIX vs. ILS - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum RFIX drawdown since its inception was -38.79%, which is greater than ILS's maximum drawdown of -2.46%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RFIX and ILS.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| RFIX | ILS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -38.79% | -2.46% | -36.33% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -21.63% | -0.55% | -21.08% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -35.26% | -0.04% | -35.22% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -24.63% | -0.52% | -24.11% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 11.73% | 0.15% | +11.58% |
Volatility
RFIX vs. ILS - Volatility Comparison
Simplify Bond Bull ETF (RFIX) has a higher volatility of 8.34% compared to Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF (ILS) at 0.47%. This indicates that RFIX's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ILS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| RFIX | ILS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 8.34% | 0.47% | +7.87% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 20.49% | 1.47% | +19.02% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 29.76% | 2.49% | +27.27% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 30.79% | 3.70% | +27.09% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 30.79% | 3.70% | +27.09% |
RFIX vs. ILS - Expense Ratio Comparison
RFIX has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than ILS's 1.58% expense ratio.
Dividends
RFIX vs. ILS - Dividend Comparison
RFIX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.69%, less than ILS's 8.18% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 |
|---|---|---|
ILS Brookmont Catastrophic Bond ETF | 8.18% | 6.06% |
RFIX Simplify Bond Bull ETF | 4.69% | 5.07% |
Frequently Asked Questions
RFIX and ILS have a correlation of -0.07, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
RFIX has higher volatility (8.34%) compared to ILS (0.47%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RFIX dropped -38.79% vs ILS's -2.46%.
On 1-year performance, ILS leads with 7.47% vs -12.67% for RFIX. On fees, RFIX is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, ILS has been the lower-risk option at 0.47%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, ILS has performed better with a 7.47% return vs -12.67%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
RFIX is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 1.58% for ILS.
ILS has the higher dividend yield at 8.18%, compared with 4.69% for RFIX.
They also come from different issuers: Simplify and Brookmont. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for RFIX and 1.58% for ILS.
ILS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.03 vs -0.43), 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.
Find the right allocation for RFIX and ILS
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer