RIGS vs. IBHG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RIGS (RiverFront Strategic Income Fund) and IBHG (iShares iBonds 2027 Term High Yield and Income ETF) are both High Yield Bonds funds. RIGS is actively managed, while IBHG is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, RIGS returned 4.62%/yr vs 7.37%/yr for IBHG. At a 0.43 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. RIGS charges 0.48%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for IBHG.

Performance

RIGS vs. IBHG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in RiverFront Strategic Income Fund (RIGS) and iShares iBonds 2027 Term High Yield and Income ETF (IBHG). 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 IBHG's 0.96% 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%

IBHG

• 1D: -0.09%
• 1M: 0.21%
• YTD: 0.96%
• 6M: 1.46%
• 1Y: 4.61%
• 3Y*: 7.37%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RIGS vs. IBHG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
RIGS RiverFront Strategic Income Fund	0.76%	4.63%	4.45%	6.07%	-5.72%	0.15%
IBHG iShares iBonds 2027 Term High Yield and Income ETF	0.96%	6.90%	7.42%	11.27%	-8.88%	1.07%

Correlation

The correlation between RIGS and IBHG is 0.15, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.15
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.36
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 12, 2021	0.43

Over the past year, the correlation between RIGS and IBHG has dropped to 0.15 - well below their long-term average of 0.43, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

Return for Risk

RIGS vs. IBHG — 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

IBHG

IBHG Risk / Return Rank: 79
IBHG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
IBHG Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
IBHG Omega Ratio Rank: 70
IBHG Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
IBHG Martin Ratio Rank: 92

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. IBHG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for RiverFront Strategic Income Fund (RIGS) and iShares iBonds 2027 Term High Yield and Income ETF (IBHG). 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	IBHG	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	0.42	2.20	-1.78
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	0.66	3.42	-2.76
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.09	1.42	-0.33
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.86	6.38	-5.51
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	2.06	23.30	-21.24
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. IBHG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RIGS Sharpe Ratio is 0.42, which is lower than the IBHG Sharpe Ratio of 2.20. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RIGS and IBHG, 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	IBHG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.42	2.20	-1.78
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	0.56	-0.11

Drawdowns

RIGS vs. IBHG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RIGS drawdown since its inception was -15.31%, which is greater than IBHG's maximum drawdown of -13.85%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RIGS and IBHG.

Drawdown Indicators

	RIGS	IBHG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.31%	-13.85%	-1.46%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-4.55%	-0.73%	-3.82%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-5.18%	-3.39%	-1.79%
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%	-0.22%	-1.46%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.60%	-2.67%	+1.07%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.90%	0.20%	+1.70%

Volatility

RIGS vs. IBHG - Volatility Comparison

RiverFront Strategic Income Fund (RIGS) has a higher volatility of 1.32% compared to iShares iBonds 2027 Term High Yield and Income ETF (IBHG) at 0.58%. This indicates that RIGS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IBHG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RIGS	IBHG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.32%	0.58%	+0.74%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	4.74%	1.53%	+3.21%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.33%	2.11%	+7.22%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	7.50%	6.37%	+1.13%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	7.75%	6.37%	+1.38%

RIGS vs. IBHG - Expense Ratio Comparison

RIGS has a 0.48% expense ratio, which is higher than IBHG's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

RIGS vs. IBHG - Dividend Comparison

RIGS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.88%, less than IBHG's 6.08% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IBHG iShares iBonds 2027 Term High Yield and Income ETF	6.08%	6.33%	7.02%	6.66%	5.62%	2.13%	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 IBHG in my portfolio?

RIGS and IBHG have a correlation of 0.15, 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 IBHG?

RIGS has higher volatility (1.32%) compared to IBHG (0.58%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RIGS dropped -15.31% vs IBHG's -13.85%.

Which ETF is better, RIGS or IBHG?

On 3-year performance, IBHG leads with 7.37% vs 4.62% for RIGS. On fees, IBHG is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, IBHG has been the lower-risk option at 0.58%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RIGS or IBHG?

Over the 3-year period, IBHG has performed better with a 7.37% 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 IBHG?

IBHG is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.48% for RIGS.

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

IBHG has the higher dividend yield at 6.08%, compared with 4.88% for RIGS.

What is the main difference between RIGS and IBHG?

They also come from different issuers: SS&C and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.48% for RIGS and 0.35% for IBHG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBHG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.20 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.