RMIF vs. CARY

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

RMIF (LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF) and CARY (Angel Oak Income ETF) are both Multisector Bonds funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, RMIF returned 4.86%/yr vs 7.33%/yr for CARY. At a 0.34 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. RMIF charges 1.38%/yr vs 0.80%/yr for CARY.

Performance

RMIF vs. CARY - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF (RMIF) and Angel Oak Income ETF (CARY). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RMIF achieves a -0.77% return, which is significantly lower than CARY's 2.01% return.

RMIF

• 1D: -0.09%
• 1M: 0.33%
• YTD: -0.77%
• 6M: -0.62%
• 1Y: 2.72%
• 3Y*: 4.86%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CARY

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.49%
• YTD: 2.01%
• 6M: 2.15%
• 1Y: 6.25%
• 3Y*: 7.33%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RMIF vs. CARY - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
RMIF LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF	-0.77%	4.36%	7.00%	4.09%
CARY Angel Oak Income ETF	2.01%	7.54%	6.93%	5.77%

Correlation

The correlation between RMIF and CARY is 0.62, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.62
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.34
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 9, 2023	0.34

Over the past year, RMIF and CARY have become more correlated (0.62) than their long-term average of 0.34, meaning their price movements have been converging.

Return for Risk

RMIF vs. CARY — Risk / Return Rank

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

RMIF

RMIF Risk / Return Rank: 28
RMIF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 30
RMIF Sortino Ratio Rank: 30
RMIF Omega Ratio Rank: 30
RMIF Calmar Ratio Rank: 25
RMIF Martin Ratio Rank: 25

CARY

CARY Risk / Return Rank: 93
CARY Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
CARY Sortino Ratio Rank: 96
CARY Omega Ratio Rank: 96
CARY Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
CARY 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.

RMIF vs. CARY - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF (RMIF) and Angel Oak Income ETF (CARY). 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.

	RMIF	CARY	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.04	3.49	-2.46
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.50	5.42	-3.92
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.19	1.76	-0.57
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.16	4.91	-3.75
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.02	21.11	-18.09

RMIF vs. CARY - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RMIF Sharpe Ratio is 1.04, which is lower than the CARY Sharpe Ratio of 3.49. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RMIF and CARY, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

RMIF vs. CARY - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RMIF drawdown since its inception was -3.01%, which is greater than CARY's maximum drawdown of -1.96%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RMIF and CARY.

Drawdown Indicators

	RMIF	CARY	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-3.01%	-1.96%	-1.05%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.37%	-1.28%	-1.09%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-3.01%	-1.96%	-1.05%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.23%	-0.19%	-1.04%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.40%	-0.32%	-0.08%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.90%	0.30%	+0.60%

Volatility

RMIF vs. CARY - Volatility Comparison

LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF (RMIF) and Angel Oak Income ETF (CARY) have volatilities of 0.62% and 0.62%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RMIF	CARY	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.62%	0.62%	0.00%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.00%	1.39%	+0.61%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.65%	1.80%	+0.85%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	2.59%	2.73%	-0.14%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	2.59%	2.73%	-0.14%

RMIF vs. CARY - Expense Ratio Comparison

RMIF has a 1.38% expense ratio, which is higher than CARY's 0.80% expense ratio.

Dividends

RMIF vs. CARY - Dividend Comparison

RMIF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.29%, less than CARY's 5.92% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
CARY Angel Oak Income ETF	5.92%	6.13%	6.10%	6.38%	0.48%
RMIF LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF	5.29%	5.70%	6.61%	3.70%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RMIF and CARY in my portfolio?

RMIF and CARY have a correlation of 0.62, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RMIF or CARY?

CARY has higher volatility (0.62%) compared to RMIF (0.62%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RMIF dropped -3.01% vs CARY's -1.96%.

Which ETF is better, RMIF or CARY?

On 3-year performance, CARY leads with 7.33% vs 4.86% for RMIF. On fees, CARY is cheaper at 0.80% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RMIF or CARY?

Over the 3-year period, CARY has performed better with a 7.33% return vs 4.86%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RMIF or CARY?

CARY is cheaper with a 0.80% expense ratio, compared with 1.38% for RMIF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RMIF or CARY?

CARY has the higher dividend yield at 5.92%, compared with 5.29% for RMIF.

What is the main difference between RMIF and CARY?

They also come from different issuers: Little Harbor Advisors and Angel Oak. Their fees differ too: 1.38% for RMIF and 0.80% for CARY.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CARY currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.49 vs 1.04), 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.