TFLR vs. SLNZ

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

TFLR (T. Rowe Price Floating Rate ETF) and SLNZ (TCW Senior Loan ETF) are both Bank Loan funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, TFLR returned 5.72% vs 4.66% for SLNZ. At a 0.11 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. TFLR charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for SLNZ.

Performance

TFLR vs. SLNZ - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, TFLR achieves a 1.39% return, which is significantly lower than SLNZ's 1.58% return.

TFLR

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

SLNZ

• 1D: -0.02%
• 1M: 0.79%
• YTD: 1.58%
• 6M: 1.98%
• 1Y: 4.66%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

TFLR vs. SLNZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
TFLR T. Rowe Price Floating Rate ETF	1.39%	6.57%	0.85%
SLNZ TCW Senior Loan ETF	1.58%	5.21%	0.87%

Correlation

The correlation between TFLR and SLNZ 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	0.11

Return for Risk

TFLR vs. SLNZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

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

SLNZ

SLNZ Risk / Return Rank: 32
SLNZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 30
SLNZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 26
SLNZ Omega Ratio Rank: 31
SLNZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 37
SLNZ Martin Ratio Rank: 37

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.

TFLR vs. SLNZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	TFLR	SLNZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.91	1.06	+1.85
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.33	1.43	+2.89
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.68	1.21	+0.47
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.64	1.82	+0.82
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.12	5.68	+6.44
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

TFLR vs. SLNZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TFLR Sharpe Ratio is 2.91, which is higher than the SLNZ Sharpe Ratio of 1.06. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TFLR and SLNZ, 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

	TFLR	SLNZ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.91	1.06	+1.85
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	2.18	1.18	+1.00

Drawdowns

TFLR vs. SLNZ - Drawdown Comparison

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

Drawdown Indicators

	TFLR	SLNZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-4.01%	-2.57%	-1.44%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.18%	-2.57%	+0.39%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-4.01%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.08%	-0.02%	-0.06%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.21%	-0.45%	+0.24%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.47%	0.82%	-0.35%

Volatility

TFLR vs. SLNZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for T. Rowe Price Floating Rate ETF (TFLR) is 0.41%, while TCW Senior Loan ETF (SLNZ) has a volatility of 1.46%. This indicates that TFLR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SLNZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	TFLR	SLNZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.41%	1.46%	-1.05%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.73%	3.89%	-2.16%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.98%	4.42%	-2.44%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	3.68%	4.29%	-0.61%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	3.68%	4.29%	-0.61%

TFLR vs. SLNZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

TFLR vs. SLNZ - Dividend Comparison

TFLR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 6.77%, less than SLNZ's 7.55% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
SLNZ TCW Senior Loan ETF	7.55%	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 TFLR and SLNZ in my portfolio?

TFLR and SLNZ 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, TFLR or SLNZ?

SLNZ has higher volatility (1.46%) compared to TFLR (0.41%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TFLR dropped -4.01% vs SLNZ's -2.57%.

Which ETF is better, TFLR or SLNZ?

On 1-year performance, TFLR leads with 5.72% vs 4.66% 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, TFLR or SLNZ?

Over the 1-year period, TFLR has performed better with a 5.72% return vs 4.66%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TFLR or SLNZ?

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

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

SLNZ has the higher dividend yield at 7.55%, compared with 6.77% for TFLR.

What is the main difference between TFLR and SLNZ?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TFLR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.91 vs 1.06), 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.