SCYB vs. FLRT

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

SCYB (Schwab High Yield Bond ETF) and FLRT (Pacific Global Senior Loan ETF) are both High Yield Bonds funds. SCYB is passively managed, while FLRT is actively managed. Over the past year, SCYB returned 6.99% vs 6.08% for FLRT. At a 0.36 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. SCYB charges 0.03%/yr vs 0.69%/yr for FLRT.

Performance

SCYB vs. FLRT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Schwab High Yield Bond ETF (SCYB) and Pacific Global Senior Loan ETF (FLRT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, SCYB achieves a 1.55% return, which is significantly lower than FLRT's 1.83% return.

SCYB

• 1D: -0.29%
• 1M: 0.36%
• YTD: 1.55%
• 6M: 1.87%
• 1Y: 6.99%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FLRT

• 1D: -0.15%
• 1M: 0.90%
• YTD: 1.83%
• 6M: 2.55%
• 1Y: 6.08%
• 3Y*: 8.90%
• 5Y*: 5.98%
• 10Y*: 5.00%

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

SCYB vs. FLRT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
SCYB Schwab High Yield Bond ETF	1.55%	8.33%	8.15%	6.74%
FLRT Pacific Global Senior Loan ETF	1.83%	6.24%	9.18%	6.98%

Correlation

The correlation between SCYB and FLRT is 0.34, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.34
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 12, 2023	0.36

SCYB vs. FLRT - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	SCYB	FLRT
Consumer Cyclical	10.6%	-
Communication Services	8.9%	0.8%
Industrials	8.7%	-
Healthcare	5.8%	-
Energy	5.8%	-
Financial Services	4.9%	99.2%
Technology	4.5%	-
Real Estate	4.2%	-
Basic Materials	3.5%	-
Consumer Defensive	2.5%	-
Utilities	2.0%	-

Return for Risk

SCYB vs. FLRT — Risk / Return Rank

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

SCYB

SCYB Risk / Return Rank: 59
SCYB Sharpe Ratio Rank: 54
SCYB Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
SCYB Omega Ratio Rank: 59
SCYB Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
SCYB Martin Ratio Rank: 68

FLRT

FLRT Risk / Return Rank: 85
FLRT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
FLRT Sortino Ratio Rank: 97
FLRT Omega Ratio Rank: 97
FLRT Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
FLRT Martin Ratio Rank: 68

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.

SCYB vs. FLRT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Schwab High Yield Bond ETF (SCYB) and Pacific Global Senior Loan ETF (FLRT). 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.

	SCYB	FLRT	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.88	3.89	-2.01
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.81	6.03	-3.22
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.37	1.95	-0.58
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.87	3.43	-0.56
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	12.87	12.62	+0.24
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

SCYB vs. FLRT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SCYB Sharpe Ratio is 1.88, which is lower than the FLRT Sharpe Ratio of 3.89. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SCYB and FLRT, 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

	SCYB	FLRT	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.88	3.89	-2.01
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	2.61	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.81	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.68	0.75	+0.93

Drawdowns

SCYB vs. FLRT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SCYB drawdown since its inception was -4.92%, smaller than the maximum FLRT drawdown of -20.96%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SCYB and FLRT.

Drawdown Indicators

	SCYB	FLRT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-4.92%	-20.96%	+16.04%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.44%	-1.78%	-0.66%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-2.87%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-7.60%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-20.96%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.33%	-0.15%	-0.18%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.52%	-1.41%	+0.89%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.54%	0.48%	+0.06%

Volatility

SCYB vs. FLRT - Volatility Comparison

Schwab High Yield Bond ETF (SCYB) has a higher volatility of 1.07% compared to Pacific Global Senior Loan ETF (FLRT) at 0.40%. This indicates that SCYB's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLRT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	SCYB	FLRT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.07%	0.40%	+0.67%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.93%	1.19%	+1.74%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.76%	1.57%	+2.19%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.13%	2.30%	+2.83%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.13%	6.17%	-1.04%

SCYB vs. FLRT - Expense Ratio Comparison

SCYB has a 0.03% expense ratio, which is lower than FLRT's 0.69% expense ratio.

Dividends

SCYB vs. FLRT - Dividend Comparison

SCYB's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.94%, more than FLRT's 6.81% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FLRT Pacific Global Senior Loan ETF	6.81%	6.93%	7.93%	8.40%	5.81%	3.16%	3.52%	4.30%	3.95%	3.20%	3.38%	3.21%
SCYB Schwab High Yield Bond ETF	6.94%	6.99%	7.06%	3.36%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both SCYB and FLRT in my portfolio?

SCYB and FLRT have a correlation of 0.34, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, SCYB or FLRT?

SCYB has higher volatility (1.07%) compared to FLRT (0.40%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SCYB dropped -4.92% vs FLRT's -20.96%.

Which ETF is better, SCYB or FLRT?

On 1-year performance, SCYB leads with 6.99% vs 6.08% for FLRT. On fees, SCYB is cheaper at 0.03% per year. On volatility, FLRT has been the lower-risk option at 0.40%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, SCYB or FLRT?

Over the 1-year period, SCYB has performed better with a 6.99% return vs 6.08%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, SCYB or FLRT?

SCYB is cheaper with a 0.03% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for FLRT.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, SCYB or FLRT?

SCYB has the higher dividend yield at 6.94%, compared with 6.81% for FLRT.

What is the main difference between SCYB and FLRT?

They also come from different issuers: Charles Schwab and Pacific Life. Their fees differ too: 0.03% for SCYB and 0.69% for FLRT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLRT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.89 vs 1.88), 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.