SLNZ vs. FLXR

Last updated Aug 1, 2026

SLNZ (TCW Senior Loan ETF) and FLXR (TCW Flexible Income ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - SLNZ is a Bank Loan fund actively managed by TCW, while FLXR is a Multisector Bonds fund actively managed by TCW. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, SLNZ returned 4.66% vs 4.12% for FLXR. Their 0.03 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. SLNZ charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for FLXR.

Performance

SLNZ vs. FLXR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in TCW Senior Loan ETF (SLNZ) and TCW Flexible Income ETF (FLXR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, SLNZ achieves a 2.50% return, which is significantly higher than FLXR's 1.30% return.

SLNZ

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.53%
• 6M: 3.30%
• YTD: 2.50%
• 1Y: 4.66%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 5.12%

FLXR

• 1D: -0.15%
• 1M: -0.36%
• 6M: 0.92%
• YTD: 1.30%
• 1Y: 4.12%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 6.72%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
FLXR TCW Flexible Income ETF	$14.67M	$16.19M	$17.11M
SLNZ TCW Senior Loan ETF	$170.20K	$97.68K	$254.02K

SLNZ vs. FLXR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
SLNZ TCW Senior Loan ETF	2.50%	5.21%	0.94%
FLXR TCW Flexible Income ETF	1.30%	8.37%	0.61%

Correlation

The correlation between SLNZ and FLXR is -0.04, meaning there was essentially no consistent relationship between their historical price movements. Each responded to its own set of market drivers.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	-0.04
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 18, 2024	0.03

Return for Risk

SLNZ vs. FLXR — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

SLNZ

SLNZ Risk / Return Rank: 43
SLNZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 41
SLNZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
SLNZ Omega Ratio Rank: 44
SLNZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 48
SLNZ Martin Ratio Rank: 47

FLXR

FLXR Risk / Return Rank: 85
FLXR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
FLXR Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
FLXR Omega Ratio Rank: 84
FLXR Calmar Ratio Rank: 83
FLXR Martin Ratio Rank: 87

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

SLNZ vs. FLXR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for TCW Senior Loan ETF (SLNZ) and TCW Flexible Income ETF (FLXR). 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.

	SLNZ	FLXR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.02	1.95	-0.92
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.37	2.84	-1.47
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.21	1.36	-0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.74	3.10	-1.36
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.44	12.66	-7.22

SLNZ vs. FLXR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SLNZ Sharpe Ratio is 1.02, which is lower than the FLXR Sharpe Ratio of 1.95. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SLNZ and FLXR, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

SLNZ vs. FLXR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SLNZ drawdown since its inception was -2.57%, which is greater than FLXR's maximum drawdown of -1.94%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SLNZ and FLXR.

Drawdown Indicators

	SLNZ	FLXR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-2.57%	-1.94%	-0.63%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.57%	-1.46%	-1.11%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.08%	-0.46%	+0.38%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.42%	-0.35%	-0.07%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.82%	0.36%	+0.46%

Volatility

SLNZ vs. FLXR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for TCW Senior Loan ETF (SLNZ) is 0.36%, while TCW Flexible Income ETF (FLXR) has a volatility of 0.67%. This indicates that SLNZ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FLXR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	SLNZ	FLXR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.36%	0.67%	-0.31%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.41%	1.85%	+1.56%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.36%	2.33%	+2.03%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	4.13%	2.79%	+1.34%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	4.13%	2.79%	+1.34%

SLNZ vs. FLXR - Expense Ratio Comparison

SLNZ has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than FLXR's 0.40% expense ratio.

Dividends

SLNZ vs. FLXR - Dividend Comparison

SLNZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 7.47%, more than FLXR's 5.91% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
FLXR TCW Flexible Income ETF	5.47%	5.66%	3.44%
SLNZ TCW Senior Loan ETF	6.93%	7.39%	1.39%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both SLNZ and FLXR in my portfolio?

SLNZ and FLXR have a correlation of -0.04, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, SLNZ or FLXR?

FLXR has higher volatility (0.67%) compared to SLNZ (0.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SLNZ dropped -2.57% vs FLXR's -1.94%.

Which ETF is better, SLNZ or FLXR?

On 1-year performance, SLNZ leads with 4.66% vs 4.12% for FLXR. On fees, FLXR is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, SLNZ has been the lower-risk option at 0.36%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, SLNZ or FLXR?

Over the 1-year period, SLNZ has performed better with a 4.66% return vs 4.12%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, SLNZ or FLXR?

FLXR is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for SLNZ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, SLNZ or FLXR?

SLNZ has the higher dividend yield at 6.93%, compared with 5.47% for FLXR.

What is the main difference between SLNZ and FLXR?

SLNZ is categorized as Bank Loan, while FLXR is Multisector Bonds. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for SLNZ and 0.40% for FLXR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLXR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.95 vs 1.02), 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.