SFGV vs. BINC
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 24.39% vs 5.52% for BINC. A 0.53 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
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, SFGV achieves a 11.40% return, which is significantly higher than BINC's 1.29% return.
SFGV
- 1D
- -0.26%
- 1M
- 0.60%
- YTD
- 11.40%
- 6M
- 11.08%
- 1Y
- 24.39%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
BINC
- 1D
- 0.06%
- 1M
- 0.69%
- YTD
- 1.29%
- 6M
- 1.50%
- 1Y
- 5.52%
- 3Y*
- 7.12%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
SFGV vs. BINC - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
SFGV Sequoia Global Value ETF | 11.40% | 18.84% | 11.04% |
BINC iShares Flexible Income Active ETF | 1.29% | 7.57% | 5.88% |
Correlation
The correlation between SFGV and BINC is 0.57, 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 | 0.57 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 18, 2024 | 0.53 |
The correlation between SFGV and BINC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.53 to 0.57 - a consistent structural relationship.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
SFGV vs. BINC — Risk / Return Rank
SFGV
BINC
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.
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.
| SFGV | BINC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.33 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.52 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.37 | 1.48 | -0.11 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.93 | 2.06 | +0.87 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 10.93 | 8.04 | +2.89 |
Loading charts...
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.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| SFGV | BINC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest 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 DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.46% | -0.10% | -1.36% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -1.87% | -0.36% | -1.51% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.24% | 0.69% | +1.55% |
Volatility
SFGV vs. BINC - Volatility Comparison
Sequoia Global Value ETF (SFGV) has a higher volatility of 3.31% compared to iShares Flexible Income Active ETF (BINC) at 0.58%. 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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| SFGV | BINC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.31% | 0.58% | +2.73% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 8.88% | 1.88% | +7.00% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 11.79% | 2.30% | +9.49% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 13.25% | 2.99% | +10.26% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 13.25% | 2.99% | +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 5.84% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
BINC iShares Flexible Income Active ETF | 5.84% | 5.86% | 6.14% | 3.13% |
SFGV Sequoia Global Value ETF | 2.25% | 2.52% | 2.23% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
SFGV and BINC have a correlation of 0.57, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
SFGV has higher volatility (3.31%) compared to BINC (0.58%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SFGV dropped -14.51% vs BINC's -2.69%.
On 1-year performance, SFGV leads with 24.39% vs 5.52% for BINC. On fees, SFGV is cheaper at 0.33% per year. On volatility, BINC has been the lower-risk option at 0.58%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, SFGV has performed better with a 24.39% return vs 5.52%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
SFGV is cheaper with a 0.33% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for BINC.
BINC has the higher dividend yield at 5.84%, compared with 2.25% for SFGV.
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.
BINC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.41 vs 2.08), 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.
Find the right allocation for SFGV and BINC
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer