TRPA vs. IBTF

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

TRPA (Hartford AAA CLO ETF) and IBTF (iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Treasury ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - TRPA is a CLO fund actively managed by Hartford, while IBTF is a Government Bonds fund tracking the ICE 2025 Maturity US Treasury Index. TRPA is actively managed, while IBTF is passively managed. Over the past year, TRPA returned 5.26% vs 2.14% for IBTF. At a correlation of -0.11, they often move in opposite directions. TRPA charges 0.24%/yr vs 0.07%/yr for IBTF.

Performance

TRPA vs. IBTF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Hartford AAA CLO ETF (TRPA) and iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Treasury ETF (IBTF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

TRPA

• 1D: -0.01%
• 1M: 0.42%
• YTD: 1.90%
• 6M: 2.43%
• 1Y: 5.26%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IBTF

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: 0.00%
• YTD: 0.00%
• 6M: 0.09%
• 1Y: 2.14%
• 3Y*: 3.66%
• 5Y*: 0.90%
• 10Y*: —

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

TRPA vs. IBTF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
TRPA Hartford AAA CLO ETF	1.90%	4.84%
IBTF iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Treasury ETF	0.00%	2.64%

Correlation

The correlation between TRPA and IBTF is -0.15, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.15
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 16, 2025	-0.11

Return for Risk

TRPA vs. IBTF — Risk / Return Rank

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

TRPA

TRPA Risk / Return Rank: 84
TRPA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
TRPA Sortino Ratio Rank: 83
TRPA Omega Ratio Rank: 78
TRPA Calmar Ratio Rank: 96
TRPA Martin Ratio Rank: 96

IBTF

IBTF Risk / Return Rank: 99
IBTF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
IBTF Sortino Ratio Rank: 99
IBTF Omega Ratio Rank: 100
IBTF Calmar Ratio Rank: 100
IBTF Martin Ratio Rank: 99

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.

TRPA vs. IBTF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Hartford AAA CLO ETF (TRPA) and iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Treasury ETF (IBTF). 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.

	TRPA	IBTF	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.26	7.08	-4.81
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.67	20.07	-16.41
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.46	6.23	-4.77
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	8.66	59.41	-50.75
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	35.17	269.70	-234.52
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

TRPA vs. IBTF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TRPA Sharpe Ratio is 2.26, which is lower than the IBTF Sharpe Ratio of 7.08. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TRPA and IBTF, 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

	TRPA	IBTF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.26	7.08	-4.81
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.39	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	2.55	0.44	+2.10

Drawdowns

TRPA vs. IBTF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TRPA drawdown since its inception was -0.61%, smaller than the maximum IBTF drawdown of -10.45%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TRPA and IBTF.

Drawdown Indicators

	TRPA	IBTF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-0.61%	-10.45%	+9.84%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.61%	-0.04%	-0.57%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-0.67%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-9.53%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.05%	0.00%	-0.05%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.10%	-3.33%	+3.23%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.15%	0.01%	+0.14%

Volatility

TRPA vs. IBTF - Volatility Comparison

Hartford AAA CLO ETF (TRPA) has a higher volatility of 0.28% compared to iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Treasury ETF (IBTF) at 0.00%. This indicates that TRPA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IBTF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	TRPA	IBTF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.28%	0.00%	+0.28%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.57%	0.19%	+1.38%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.34%	0.36%	+1.98%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	2.38%	2.38%	0.00%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	2.38%	2.56%	-0.18%

TRPA vs. IBTF - Expense Ratio Comparison

TRPA has a 0.24% expense ratio, which is higher than IBTF's 0.07% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

TRPA vs. IBTF - Dividend Comparison

TRPA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.19%, more than IBTF's 2.08% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
IBTF iShares iBonds Dec 2025 Term Treasury ETF	2.08%	3.83%	4.32%	4.03%	1.93%	0.57%	0.59%
TRPA Hartford AAA CLO ETF	5.19%	4.14%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TRPA and IBTF in my portfolio?

TRPA and IBTF have a correlation of -0.15, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, TRPA or IBTF?

TRPA has higher volatility (0.28%) compared to IBTF (0.00%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TRPA dropped -0.61% vs IBTF's -10.45%.

Which ETF is better, TRPA or IBTF?

On 1-year performance, TRPA leads with 5.26% vs 2.14% for IBTF. On fees, IBTF is cheaper at 0.07% per year. On volatility, IBTF has been the lower-risk option at 0.00%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TRPA or IBTF?

Over the 1-year period, TRPA has performed better with a 5.26% return vs 2.14%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TRPA or IBTF?

IBTF is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.24% for TRPA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, TRPA or IBTF?

TRPA has the higher dividend yield at 5.19%, compared with 2.08% for IBTF.

What is the main difference between TRPA and IBTF?

TRPA is categorized as CLO, while IBTF is Government Bonds. They also come from different issuers: Hartford and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.24% for TRPA and 0.07% for IBTF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IBTF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (7.08 vs 2.26), 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.