SLNZ vs. TFLR

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

SLNZ (TCW Senior Loan ETF) and TFLR (T. Rowe Price Floating Rate ETF) are both Bank Loan funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, SLNZ returned 4.62% vs 5.72% for TFLR. At a 0.10 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. SLNZ charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for TFLR.

Performance

SLNZ vs. TFLR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in TCW Senior Loan ETF (SLNZ) and T. Rowe Price Floating Rate ETF (TFLR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, SLNZ achieves a 1.60% return, which is significantly higher than TFLR's 1.39% return.

SLNZ

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 1.08%
• YTD: 1.60%
• 6M: 1.87%
• 1Y: 4.62%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

TFLR

• 1D: -0.06%
• 1M: 0.34%
• YTD: 1.39%
• 6M: 2.07%
• 1Y: 5.72%
• 3Y*: 8.12%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

SLNZ vs. TFLR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
SLNZ TCW Senior Loan ETF	1.60%	5.21%	0.87%
TFLR T. Rowe Price Floating Rate ETF	1.39%	6.57%	0.85%

Correlation

The correlation between SLNZ and TFLR is 0.08, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.08
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 19, 2024	0.10

Return for Risk

SLNZ vs. TFLR — Risk / Return Rank

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

SLNZ

SLNZ Risk / Return Rank: 31
SLNZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 29
SLNZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 26
SLNZ Omega Ratio Rank: 30
SLNZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 35
SLNZ Martin Ratio Rank: 35

TFLR

TFLR Risk / Return Rank: 78
TFLR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
TFLR Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
TFLR Omega Ratio Rank: 94
TFLR Calmar Ratio Rank: 53
TFLR Martin Ratio Rank: 65

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.

SLNZ vs. TFLR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for TCW Senior Loan ETF (SLNZ) and T. Rowe Price Floating Rate ETF (TFLR). 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.

	SLNZ	TFLR	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.05	2.91	-1.86
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.42	4.33	-2.91
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.21	1.68	-0.47
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.77	2.64	-0.87
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	5.52	12.12	-6.60
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

SLNZ vs. TFLR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SLNZ Sharpe Ratio is 1.05, which is lower than the TFLR Sharpe Ratio of 2.91. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SLNZ and TFLR, 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

	SLNZ	TFLR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.05	2.91	-1.86
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.19	2.18	-1.00

Drawdowns

SLNZ vs. TFLR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SLNZ drawdown since its inception was -2.57%, smaller than the maximum TFLR drawdown of -4.01%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SLNZ and TFLR.

Drawdown Indicators

	SLNZ	TFLR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-2.57%	-4.01%	+1.44%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.57%	-2.18%	-0.39%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-4.01%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.08%	+0.08%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.46%	-0.21%	-0.25%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.82%	0.47%	+0.35%

Volatility

SLNZ vs. TFLR - Volatility Comparison

TCW Senior Loan ETF (SLNZ) has a higher volatility of 1.48% compared to T. Rowe Price Floating Rate ETF (TFLR) at 0.41%. This indicates that SLNZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than TFLR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	SLNZ	TFLR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	1.48%	0.41%	+1.07%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.89%	1.73%	+2.16%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.42%	1.98%	+2.44%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	4.29%	3.68%	+0.61%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	4.29%	3.68%	+0.61%

SLNZ vs. TFLR - Expense Ratio Comparison

SLNZ has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than TFLR's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

SLNZ vs. TFLR - Dividend Comparison

SLNZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 7.54%, more than TFLR's 6.77% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
SLNZ TCW Senior Loan ETF	7.54%	7.39%	1.39%	0.00%	0.00%
TFLR T. Rowe Price Floating Rate ETF	6.77%	6.93%	8.18%	7.76%	0.58%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both SLNZ and TFLR in my portfolio?

SLNZ and TFLR have a correlation of 0.08, 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 TFLR?

SLNZ has higher volatility (1.48%) compared to TFLR (0.41%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SLNZ dropped -2.57% vs TFLR's -4.01%.

Which ETF is better, SLNZ or TFLR?

On 1-year performance, TFLR leads with 5.72% vs 4.62% for SLNZ. On fees, TFLR is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, TFLR has been the lower-risk option at 0.41%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, SLNZ or TFLR?

Over the 1-year period, TFLR has performed better with a 5.72% return vs 4.62%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, SLNZ or TFLR?

TFLR is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for SLNZ.

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

SLNZ has the higher dividend yield at 7.54%, compared with 6.77% for TFLR.

What is the main difference between SLNZ and TFLR?

They also come from different issuers: TCW and T. Rowe Price. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for SLNZ and 0.60% for TFLR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TFLR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.91 vs 1.05), 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.