RMIF vs. NFLT

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

RMIF (LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF) and NFLT (Virtus Newfleet Multi-Sector Bond ETF) are both Multisector Bonds funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, RMIF returned 3.22% vs 7.51% for NFLT. At a 0.42 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. RMIF charges 1.38%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for NFLT.

Performance

RMIF vs. NFLT - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RMIF achieves a -0.73% return, which is significantly lower than NFLT's 1.66% return.

RMIF

• 1D: 0.08%
• 1M: 0.22%
• YTD: -0.73%
• 6M: -0.26%
• 1Y: 3.22%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

NFLT

• 1D: 0.09%
• 1M: 0.38%
• YTD: 1.66%
• 6M: 2.08%
• 1Y: 7.51%
• 3Y*: 7.43%
• 5Y*: 3.24%
• 10Y*: 4.14%

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

RMIF vs. NFLT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
RMIF LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF	-0.73%	4.36%	7.00%	4.16%
NFLT Virtus Newfleet Multi-Sector Bond ETF	1.66%	8.77%	6.05%	5.76%

Correlation

The correlation between RMIF and NFLT is 0.38, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.38
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 12, 2023	0.42

RMIF vs. NFLT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RMIF	NFLT
Utilities	76.7%	2.7%
Healthcare	13.8%	0.0%
Technology	9.4%	0.0%
Communication Services	0.1%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Cyclical	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	0.9%
Industrials	-	-
Real Estate	-	0.0%

Return for Risk

RMIF vs. NFLT — Risk / Return Rank

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

RMIF

RMIF Risk / Return Rank: 31
RMIF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 33
RMIF Sortino Ratio Rank: 33
RMIF Omega Ratio Rank: 34
RMIF Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
RMIF Martin Ratio Rank: 26

NFLT

NFLT Risk / Return Rank: 60
NFLT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 54
NFLT Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
NFLT Omega Ratio Rank: 56
NFLT Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
NFLT Martin Ratio Rank: 72

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. NFLT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF (RMIF) and Virtus Newfleet Multi-Sector Bond ETF (NFLT). 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.

	RMIF	NFLT	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.23	1.88	-0.65
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.79	2.75	-0.96
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.35	-0.12
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.35	3.09	-1.74
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	3.76	13.64	-9.88
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RMIF vs. NFLT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RMIF Sharpe Ratio is 1.23, which is lower than the NFLT Sharpe Ratio of 1.88. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RMIF and NFLT, 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

	RMIF	NFLT	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.23	1.88	-0.65
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.73	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.84	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.92	0.84	+1.07

Drawdowns

RMIF vs. NFLT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RMIF drawdown since its inception was -3.01%, smaller than the maximum NFLT drawdown of -15.17%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RMIF and NFLT.

Drawdown Indicators

	RMIF	NFLT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-3.01%	-15.17%	+12.16%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.37%	-2.42%	+0.05%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-3.24%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-13.42%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-15.17%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.19%	-0.17%	-1.02%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.38%	-2.10%	+1.72%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.85%	0.55%	+0.30%

Volatility

RMIF vs. NFLT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF (RMIF) is 0.74%, while Virtus Newfleet Multi-Sector Bond ETF (NFLT) has a volatility of 1.20%. This indicates that RMIF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than NFLT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RMIF	NFLT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.74%	1.20%	-0.46%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.99%	2.93%	-0.94%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.62%	4.01%	-1.39%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	2.59%	4.43%	-1.84%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	2.59%	4.93%	-2.34%

RMIF vs. NFLT - Expense Ratio Comparison

RMIF has a 1.38% expense ratio, which is higher than NFLT's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

RMIF vs. NFLT - Dividend Comparison

RMIF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.29%, less than NFLT's 5.49% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
NFLT Virtus Newfleet Multi-Sector Bond ETF	5.49%	5.74%	5.76%	6.02%	4.16%	3.41%	3.63%	4.33%	4.81%	6.23%	5.30%	0.67%
RMIF LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF	5.29%	5.70%	6.61%	3.70%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RMIF and NFLT in my portfolio?

RMIF and NFLT have a correlation of 0.38, 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 NFLT?

NFLT has higher volatility (1.20%) compared to RMIF (0.74%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RMIF dropped -3.01% vs NFLT's -15.17%.

Which ETF is better, RMIF or NFLT?

On 1-year performance, NFLT leads with 7.51% vs 3.22% for RMIF. On fees, NFLT is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, RMIF has been the lower-risk option at 0.74%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RMIF or NFLT?

Over the 1-year period, NFLT has performed better with a 7.51% return vs 3.22%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RMIF or NFLT?

NFLT is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 1.38% for RMIF.

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

NFLT has the higher dividend yield at 5.49%, compared with 5.29% for RMIF.

What is the main difference between RMIF and NFLT?

They also come from different issuers: Little Harbor Advisors and Virtus. Their fees differ too: 1.38% for RMIF and 0.50% for NFLT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

NFLT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.88 vs 1.23), 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.