RSBA vs. PFFL

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RSBA (Return Stacked Bonds & Merger Arbitrage ETF) and PFFL (ETRACS Monthly Pay 2xLeveraged Preferred Stock ETN) are both exchange-traded funds - RSBA is a Leveraged Bonds fund actively managed by Return Stacked, while PFFL is a Preferred Stock/Convertible Bonds fund tracking the Solactive Preferred Stock ETF Index. RSBA is actively managed, while PFFL is passively managed. Over the past year, RSBA returned 4.65% vs 8.48% for PFFL. At a 0.37 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. RSBA charges 0.96%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for PFFL.

Performance

RSBA vs. PFFL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Return Stacked Bonds & Merger Arbitrage ETF (RSBA) and ETRACS Monthly Pay 2xLeveraged Preferred Stock ETN (PFFL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RSBA achieves a -0.30% return, which is significantly lower than PFFL's 0.10% return.

RSBA

• 1D: -0.24%
• 1M: 0.15%
• YTD: -0.30%
• 6M: -0.66%
• 1Y: 4.65%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

PFFL

• 1D: -0.99%
• 1M: -1.06%
• YTD: 0.10%
• 6M: 0.21%
• 1Y: 8.48%
• 3Y*: 3.14%
• 5Y*: -5.89%
• 10Y*: —

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

RSBA vs. PFFL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
RSBA Return Stacked Bonds & Merger Arbitrage ETF	-0.30%	7.73%	-0.04%
PFFL ETRACS Monthly Pay 2xLeveraged Preferred Stock ETN	0.10%	2.18%	-2.76%

Correlation

The correlation between RSBA and PFFL is 0.36, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.36
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 19, 2024	0.37

Return for Risk

RSBA vs. PFFL — Risk / Return Rank

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

RSBA

RSBA Risk / Return Rank: 30
RSBA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 28
RSBA Sortino Ratio Rank: 28
RSBA Omega Ratio Rank: 26
RSBA Calmar Ratio Rank: 35
RSBA Martin Ratio Rank: 32

PFFL

PFFL Risk / Return Rank: 17
PFFL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 17
PFFL Sortino Ratio Rank: 16
PFFL Omega Ratio Rank: 17
PFFL Calmar Ratio Rank: 18
PFFL Martin Ratio Rank: 17

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.

RSBA vs. PFFL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Return Stacked Bonds & Merger Arbitrage ETF (RSBA) and ETRACS Monthly Pay 2xLeveraged Preferred Stock ETN (PFFL). 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.

	RSBA	PFFL	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.02	0.50	+0.51
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.52	0.81	+0.71
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.11	+0.07
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.70	0.71	+0.99
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	4.70	1.76	+2.94
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RSBA vs. PFFL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RSBA Sharpe Ratio is 1.02, which is higher than the PFFL Sharpe Ratio of 0.50. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RSBA and PFFL, 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

	RSBA	PFFL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.02	0.50	+0.51
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	-0.25	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.00	-0.07	+1.07

Drawdowns

RSBA vs. PFFL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RSBA drawdown since its inception was -2.83%, smaller than the maximum PFFL drawdown of -80.68%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RSBA and PFFL.

Drawdown Indicators

	RSBA	PFFL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-2.83%	-80.68%	+77.85%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.74%	-11.92%	+9.18%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-23.75%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-48.51%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.62%	-38.34%	+36.72%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.81%	-28.54%	+27.73%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.99%	4.84%	-3.85%

Volatility

RSBA vs. PFFL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Return Stacked Bonds & Merger Arbitrage ETF (RSBA) is 1.37%, while ETRACS Monthly Pay 2xLeveraged Preferred Stock ETN (PFFL) has a volatility of 3.83%. This indicates that RSBA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than PFFL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RSBA	PFFL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.37%	3.83%	-2.46%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.27%	10.33%	-7.06%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.59%	16.91%	-12.32%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.08%	23.62%	-18.54%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.08%	55.35%	-50.27%

RSBA vs. PFFL - Expense Ratio Comparison

RSBA has a 0.96% expense ratio, which is higher than PFFL's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

RSBA vs. PFFL - Dividend Comparison

RSBA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.38%, less than PFFL's 12.44% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
PFFL ETRACS Monthly Pay 2xLeveraged Preferred Stock ETN	12.44%	13.27%	13.76%	13.71%	13.90%	8.82%	9.75%	11.21%	2.02%
RSBA Return Stacked Bonds & Merger Arbitrage ETF	3.38%	3.37%	0.01%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RSBA and PFFL in my portfolio?

RSBA and PFFL have a correlation of 0.36, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RSBA or PFFL?

PFFL has higher volatility (3.83%) compared to RSBA (1.37%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RSBA dropped -2.83% vs PFFL's -80.68%.

Which ETF is better, RSBA or PFFL?

On 1-year performance, PFFL leads with 8.48% vs 4.65% for RSBA. On fees, PFFL is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, RSBA has been the lower-risk option at 1.37%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RSBA or PFFL?

Over the 1-year period, PFFL has performed better with a 8.48% return vs 4.65%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RSBA or PFFL?

PFFL is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 0.96% for RSBA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RSBA or PFFL?

PFFL has the higher dividend yield at 12.44%, compared with 3.38% for RSBA.

What is the main difference between RSBA and PFFL?

RSBA is categorized as Leveraged Bonds, while PFFL is Preferred Stock/Convertible Bonds. They also come from different issuers: Return Stacked and UBS. Their fees differ too: 0.96% for RSBA and 0.85% for PFFL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RSBA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.02 vs 0.50), 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.