SFGV vs. BINC

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

SFGV (Sequoia Global Value ETF) and BINC (iShares Flexible Income Active ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - SFGV is a Global Equities fund actively managed by Sequoia, while BINC is a Multisector Bonds fund actively managed by iShares. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, SFGV returned 25.44% vs 5.80% for BINC. A 0.52 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. SFGV charges 0.33%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for BINC.

Performance

SFGV vs. BINC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Sequoia Global Value ETF (SFGV) and iShares Flexible Income Active ETF (BINC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, SFGV achieves a 11.37% return, which is significantly higher than BINC's 0.90% return.

SFGV

• 1D: -0.38%
• 1M: 3.27%
• YTD: 11.37%
• 6M: 11.60%
• 1Y: 25.44%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BINC

• 1D: -0.12%
• 1M: 0.54%
• YTD: 0.90%
• 6M: 1.22%
• 1Y: 5.80%
• 3Y*: 7.02%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

SFGV vs. BINC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
SFGV Sequoia Global Value ETF	11.37%	18.84%	10.71%
BINC iShares Flexible Income Active ETF	0.90%	7.57%	6.10%

Correlation

The correlation between SFGV and BINC is 0.54, 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	0.54
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 19, 2024	0.52

The correlation between SFGV and BINC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.52 to 0.54 - a consistent structural relationship.

SFGV vs. BINC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	SFGV	BINC
Consumer Cyclical	15.3%	-
Industrials	13.7%	0.0%
Healthcare	12.7%	-0.0%
Energy	11.4%	0.0%
Technology	11.4%	-
Financial Services	10.5%	0.1%
Consumer Defensive	8.8%	-
Basic Materials	6.0%	0.0%
Real Estate	5.9%	-0.0%
Communication Services	3.4%	-0.0%
Utilities	1.0%	-

Return for Risk

SFGV vs. BINC — Risk / Return Rank

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

SFGV

SFGV Risk / Return Rank: 66
SFGV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
SFGV Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
SFGV Omega Ratio Rank: 66
SFGV Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
SFGV Martin Ratio Rank: 64

BINC

BINC Risk / Return Rank: 67
BINC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
BINC Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
BINC Omega Ratio Rank: 83
BINC Calmar Ratio Rank: 43
BINC Martin Ratio Rank: 50

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.

SFGV vs. BINC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Sequoia Global Value ETF (SFGV) and iShares Flexible Income Active ETF (BINC). 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.

	SFGV	BINC	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.21	2.56	-0.35
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.17	3.71	-0.54
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.39	1.51	-0.12
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.06	2.17	+0.89
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	11.43	8.53	+2.90
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

SFGV vs. BINC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SFGV Sharpe Ratio is 2.21, which is comparable to the BINC Sharpe Ratio of 2.56. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SFGV and BINC, 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

	SFGV	BINC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.21	2.56	-0.35
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.33	2.36	-1.04

Drawdowns

SFGV vs. BINC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SFGV drawdown since its inception was -14.51%, which is greater than BINC's maximum drawdown of -2.69%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SFGV and BINC.

Drawdown Indicators

	SFGV	BINC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.51%	-2.69%	-11.82%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.36%	-2.69%	-5.67%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-2.69%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.38%	-0.49%	+0.11%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.89%	-0.36%	-1.53%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.23%	0.68%	+1.55%

Volatility

SFGV vs. BINC - Volatility Comparison

Sequoia Global Value ETF (SFGV) has a higher volatility of 2.95% compared to iShares Flexible Income Active ETF (BINC) at 0.75%. This indicates that SFGV's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BINC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	SFGV	BINC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.95%	0.75%	+2.20%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.62%	1.84%	+6.78%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.58%	2.28%	+9.30%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.26%	3.00%	+10.26%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.26%	3.00%	+10.26%

SFGV vs. BINC - Expense Ratio Comparison

SFGV has a 0.33% expense ratio, which is lower than BINC's 0.40% expense ratio.

Dividends

SFGV vs. BINC - Dividend Comparison

SFGV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.25%, less than BINC's 5.86% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
BINC iShares Flexible Income Active ETF	5.86%	5.86%	6.14%	3.13%
SFGV Sequoia Global Value ETF	2.25%	2.52%	2.23%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both SFGV and BINC in my portfolio?

SFGV and BINC have a correlation of 0.54, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, SFGV or BINC?

SFGV has higher volatility (2.95%) compared to BINC (0.75%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SFGV dropped -14.51% vs BINC's -2.69%.

Which ETF is better, SFGV or BINC?

On 1-year performance, SFGV leads with 25.44% vs 5.80% for BINC. On fees, SFGV is cheaper at 0.33% per year. On volatility, BINC has been the lower-risk option at 0.75%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, SFGV or BINC?

Over the 1-year period, SFGV has performed better with a 25.44% return vs 5.80%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, SFGV or BINC?

SFGV is cheaper with a 0.33% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for BINC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, SFGV or BINC?

BINC has the higher dividend yield at 5.86%, compared with 2.25% for SFGV.

What is the main difference between SFGV and BINC?

SFGV is categorized as Global Equities, while BINC is Multisector Bonds. They also come from different issuers: Sequoia and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.33% for SFGV and 0.40% for BINC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BINC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.56 vs 2.21), 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.