SLNZ vs. VOTE

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

SLNZ (TCW Senior Loan ETF) and VOTE (TCW Transform 500 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - SLNZ is a Bank Loan fund actively managed by TCW, while VOTE is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Morningstar US Large Cap Index. SLNZ is actively managed, while VOTE is passively managed. Over the past year, SLNZ returned 4.82% vs 23.13% for VOTE. Their 0.05 correlation means their historical movements had little consistent relationship. SLNZ charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.05%/yr for VOTE.

Performance

SLNZ vs. VOTE - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in TCW Senior Loan ETF (SLNZ) and TCW Transform 500 ETF (VOTE). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, SLNZ achieves a 2.65% return, which is significantly lower than VOTE's 11.82% return.

SLNZ

• 1D: 0.15%
• 1M: 0.68%
• 6M: 2.53%
• YTD: 2.65%
• 1Y: 4.82%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 5.19%

VOTE

• 1D: 1.62%
• 1M: 1.57%
• 6M: 9.83%
• YTD: 11.82%
• 1Y: 23.13%
• 3Y*: 21.15%
• 5Y*: 12.73%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 13.27%

*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)
SLNZ TCW Senior Loan ETF	$171.84K	$98.00K	$256.92K
VOTE TCW Transform 500 ETF	$1.89M	$1.67M	$2.43M

SLNZ vs. VOTE - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
SLNZ TCW Senior Loan ETF	2.65%	5.21%	0.94%
VOTE TCW Transform 500 ETF	11.82%	17.95%	0.39%

Correlation

The correlation between SLNZ and VOTE is 0.09, 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.	0.09
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 18, 2024	0.05

Return for Risk

SLNZ vs. VOTE — Risk / Return Rank

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

SLNZ

SLNZ Risk / Return Rank: 44
SLNZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 41
SLNZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 37
SLNZ Omega Ratio Rank: 45
SLNZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 49
SLNZ Martin Ratio Rank: 48

VOTE

VOTE Risk / Return Rank: 75
VOTE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
VOTE Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
VOTE Omega Ratio Rank: 73
VOTE Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
VOTE Martin Ratio Rank: 80

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. VOTE - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for TCW Senior Loan ETF (SLNZ) and TCW Transform 500 ETF (VOTE). 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	VOTE	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.11	1.78	-0.66
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.48	2.46	-0.97
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.31	-0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.88	2.55	-0.67
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.89	10.80	-4.91

SLNZ vs. VOTE - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SLNZ Sharpe Ratio is 1.11, which is lower than the VOTE Sharpe Ratio of 1.78. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SLNZ and VOTE, 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. VOTE - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SLNZ drawdown since its inception was -2.57%, smaller than the maximum VOTE drawdown of -25.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SLNZ and VOTE.

Drawdown Indicators

	SLNZ	VOTE	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-2.57%	-25.71%	+23.14%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.57%	-9.10%	+6.53%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-19.08%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-25.71%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.42%	-6.00%	+5.58%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.82%	2.15%	-1.33%

Volatility

SLNZ vs. VOTE - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for TCW Senior Loan ETF (SLNZ) is 0.37%, while TCW Transform 500 ETF (VOTE) has a volatility of 3.93%. This indicates that SLNZ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than VOTE based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	SLNZ	VOTE	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.37%	3.93%	-3.56%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	3.35%	10.39%	-7.04%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	4.36%	13.11%	-8.75%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	4.13%	17.22%	-13.09%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	4.13%	17.09%	-12.96%

SLNZ vs. VOTE - Expense Ratio Comparison

SLNZ has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than VOTE's 0.05% expense ratio.

Dividends

SLNZ vs. VOTE - Dividend Comparison

SLNZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 7.46%, more than VOTE's 0.93% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
SLNZ TCW Senior Loan ETF	7.46%	7.39%	1.39%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
VOTE TCW Transform 500 ETF	0.93%	1.03%	1.18%	1.33%	1.54%	0.54%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both SLNZ and VOTE in my portfolio?

SLNZ and VOTE have a correlation of 0.09, 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 VOTE?

VOTE has higher volatility (3.93%) compared to SLNZ (0.37%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SLNZ dropped -2.57% vs VOTE's -25.71%.

Which ETF is better, SLNZ or VOTE?

On 1-year performance, VOTE leads with 23.13% vs 4.82% for SLNZ. On fees, VOTE is cheaper at 0.05% per year. On volatility, SLNZ has been the lower-risk option at 0.37%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, SLNZ or VOTE?

Over the 1-year period, VOTE has performed better with a 23.13% return vs 4.82%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, SLNZ or VOTE?

VOTE is cheaper with a 0.05% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for SLNZ.

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

SLNZ has the higher dividend yield at 7.46%, compared with 0.93% for VOTE.

What is the main difference between SLNZ and VOTE?

SLNZ is categorized as Bank Loan, while VOTE is Large Cap Blend Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for SLNZ and 0.05% for VOTE.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

VOTE currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.78 vs 1.11), 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.