RIGS vs. FSYD

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RIGS (RiverFront Strategic Income Fund) and FSYD (Fidelity Sustainable High Yield ETF) are both High Yield Bonds funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, RIGS returned 4.62%/yr vs 9.54%/yr for FSYD. At a 0.50 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. RIGS charges 0.48%/yr vs 0.55%/yr for FSYD.

Performance

RIGS vs. FSYD - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in RiverFront Strategic Income Fund (RIGS) and Fidelity Sustainable High Yield ETF (FSYD). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RIGS achieves a 0.76% return, which is significantly lower than FSYD's 3.35% return.

RIGS

• 1D: -0.27%
• 1M: 0.07%
• YTD: 0.76%
• 6M: 0.41%
• 1Y: 3.91%
• 3Y*: 4.62%
• 5Y*: 2.13%
• 10Y*: 3.15%

FSYD

• 1D: -0.27%
• 1M: 0.75%
• YTD: 3.35%
• 6M: 3.97%
• 1Y: 10.19%
• 3Y*: 9.54%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RIGS vs. FSYD - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
RIGS RiverFront Strategic Income Fund	0.76%	4.63%	4.45%	6.07%	-2.94%
FSYD Fidelity Sustainable High Yield ETF	3.35%	9.09%	8.74%	12.22%	-6.59%

Correlation

The correlation between RIGS and FSYD is 0.30, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.30
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.46
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 18, 2022	0.50

The correlation between RIGS and FSYD shifts across timeframes, from 0.30 (1 year) to 0.50 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

RIGS vs. FSYD — Risk / Return Rank

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

RIGS

RIGS Risk / Return Rank: 17
RIGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 15
RIGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 14
RIGS Omega Ratio Rank: 15
RIGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
RIGS Martin Ratio Rank: 19

FSYD

FSYD Risk / Return Rank: 79
FSYD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
FSYD Sortino Ratio Rank: 83
FSYD Omega Ratio Rank: 82
FSYD Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
FSYD Martin Ratio Rank: 78

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.

RIGS vs. FSYD - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for RiverFront Strategic Income Fund (RIGS) and Fidelity Sustainable High Yield ETF (FSYD). 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.

	RIGS	FSYD	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	0.42	2.49	-2.07
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	0.66	3.79	-3.14
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.09	1.50	-0.41
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.86	3.83	-2.96
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	2.06	15.34	-13.28
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RIGS vs. FSYD - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RIGS Sharpe Ratio is 0.42, which is lower than the FSYD Sharpe Ratio of 2.49. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RIGS and FSYD, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	RIGS	FSYD	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.42	2.49	-2.07
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.29	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.41	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.45	0.77	-0.32

Drawdowns

RIGS vs. FSYD - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RIGS drawdown since its inception was -15.31%, which is greater than FSYD's maximum drawdown of -12.11%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RIGS and FSYD.

Drawdown Indicators

	RIGS	FSYD	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.31%	-12.11%	-3.20%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.55%	-2.67%	-1.88%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-5.18%	-5.49%	+0.31%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-9.03%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-15.31%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.68%	-0.27%	-1.41%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.60%	-2.40%	+0.80%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.90%	0.67%	+1.23%

Volatility

RIGS vs. FSYD - Volatility Comparison

RiverFront Strategic Income Fund (RIGS) has a higher volatility of 1.32% compared to Fidelity Sustainable High Yield ETF (FSYD) at 1.12%. This indicates that RIGS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FSYD based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RIGS	FSYD	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.32%	1.12%	+0.20%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.74%	3.13%	+1.61%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.33%	4.12%	+5.21%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.50%	7.85%	-0.35%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.75%	7.85%	-0.10%

RIGS vs. FSYD - Expense Ratio Comparison

RIGS has a 0.48% expense ratio, which is lower than FSYD's 0.55% expense ratio.

Dividends

RIGS vs. FSYD - Dividend Comparison

RIGS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.88%, less than FSYD's 6.32% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FSYD Fidelity Sustainable High Yield ETF	6.32%	6.49%	6.47%	6.70%	5.29%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RIGS RiverFront Strategic Income Fund	4.88%	4.84%	4.49%	3.48%	2.71%	2.47%	3.77%	3.87%	4.54%	4.45%	4.46%	3.61%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RIGS and FSYD in my portfolio?

RIGS and FSYD have a correlation of 0.30, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RIGS or FSYD?

RIGS has higher volatility (1.32%) compared to FSYD (1.12%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RIGS dropped -15.31% vs FSYD's -12.11%.

Which ETF is better, RIGS or FSYD?

On 3-year performance, FSYD leads with 9.54% vs 4.62% for RIGS. On fees, RIGS is cheaper at 0.48% per year. On volatility, FSYD has been the lower-risk option at 1.12%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RIGS or FSYD?

Over the 3-year period, FSYD has performed better with a 9.54% return vs 4.62%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RIGS or FSYD?

RIGS is cheaper with a 0.48% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for FSYD.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RIGS or FSYD?

FSYD has the higher dividend yield at 6.32%, compared with 4.88% for RIGS.

What is the main difference between RIGS and FSYD?

They also come from different issuers: SS&C and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.48% for RIGS and 0.55% for FSYD.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FSYD currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.49 vs 0.42), 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.