RMIF vs. XAGG

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

RMIF (LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF) and XAGG (Eaton Vance Income Opportunities ETF) are both Multisector Bonds funds. Both are actively managed. A 0.58 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RMIF charges 1.38%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for XAGG.

Performance

RMIF vs. XAGG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF (RMIF) and Eaton Vance Income Opportunities ETF (XAGG). 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 XAGG's 2.10% return.

RMIF

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.33%
• YTD: -0.77%
• 6M: -0.76%
• 1Y: 2.56%
• 3Y*: 4.86%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

XAGG

• 1D: 0.09%
• 1M: 0.54%
• YTD: 2.10%
• 6M: 1.94%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RMIF vs. XAGG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
RMIF LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF	-0.77%	1.26%
XAGG Eaton Vance Income Opportunities ETF	2.10%	1.75%

Correlation

The correlation between RMIF and XAGG is 0.58, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 10, 2025	0.58

Return for Risk

RMIF vs. XAGG — Risk / Return Rank

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

RMIF

RMIF Risk / Return Rank: 27
RMIF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 29
RMIF Sortino Ratio Rank: 28
RMIF Omega Ratio Rank: 29
RMIF Calmar Ratio Rank: 24
RMIF Martin Ratio Rank: 24

XAGG

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

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. XAGG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF (RMIF) and Eaton Vance Income Opportunities ETF (XAGG). 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	XAGG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.97	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.41	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.09	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.83	—	—

Drawdowns

RMIF vs. XAGG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RMIF drawdown since its inception was -3.01%, roughly equal to the maximum XAGG drawdown of -2.88%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RMIF and XAGG.

Drawdown Indicators

	RMIF	XAGG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-3.01%	-2.88%	-0.13%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.37%	—	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-3.01%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.23%	-0.51%	-0.72%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.40%	-0.56%	+0.16%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.91%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	RMIF	XAGG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.62%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.00%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.64%	3.50%	-0.86%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	2.59%	3.50%	-0.91%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	2.59%	3.50%	-0.91%

RMIF vs. XAGG - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

RMIF vs. XAGG - Dividend Comparison

RMIF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.29%, more than XAGG's 3.86% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
RMIF LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF	5.29%	5.70%	6.61%	3.70%
XAGG Eaton Vance Income Opportunities ETF	3.86%	1.02%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RMIF and XAGG in my portfolio?

RMIF and XAGG have a correlation of 0.58, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, RMIF or XAGG?

On fees, XAGG is cheaper at 0.50% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, RMIF or XAGG?

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

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

RMIF has the higher dividend yield at 5.29%, compared with 3.86% for XAGG.

What is the main difference between RMIF and XAGG?

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