PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
XFIV vs. XSVN
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

XFIV vs. XSVN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in BondBloxx Bloomberg Five Year Target Duration US Treasury ETF (XFIV) and BondBloxx Bloomberg Seven Year Target Duration US Treasury ETF (XSVN). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XFIV achieves a -0.47% return, which is significantly higher than XSVN's -0.57% return.


XFIV

1D
-0.18%
1M
-0.16%
YTD
-0.47%
6M
-0.68%
1Y
3.51%
3Y*
3.51%
5Y*
10Y*

XSVN

1D
-0.24%
1M
-0.07%
YTD
-0.57%
6M
-1.04%
1Y
4.22%
3Y*
2.75%
5Y*
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

XFIV vs. XSVN - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)2025202420232022
XFIV
BondBloxx Bloomberg Five Year Target Duration US Treasury ETF
-0.47%7.43%1.52%4.40%-0.56%
XSVN
BondBloxx Bloomberg Seven Year Target Duration US Treasury ETF
-0.57%8.18%-0.35%3.91%-1.71%

Correlation

The correlation between XFIV and XSVN is 0.98 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.98

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.97

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 16, 2022

0.98

The correlation between XFIV and XSVN has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.97 to 0.98 - a consistent structural relationship.

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

XFIV vs. XSVN — Risk / Return Rank

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

XFIV
XFIV Risk / Return Rank: 2727
Overall Rank
XFIV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2828
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XFIV Sortino Ratio Rank: 2828
Sortino Ratio Rank
XFIV Omega Ratio Rank: 2626
Omega Ratio Rank
XFIV Calmar Ratio Rank: 2626
Calmar Ratio Rank
XFIV Martin Ratio Rank: 2727
Martin Ratio Rank

XSVN
XSVN Risk / Return Rank: 2525
Overall Rank
XSVN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2626
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XSVN Sortino Ratio Rank: 2525
Sortino Ratio Rank
XSVN Omega Ratio Rank: 2424
Omega Ratio Rank
XSVN Calmar Ratio Rank: 2323
Calmar Ratio Rank
XSVN Martin Ratio Rank: 2424
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

XFIV vs. XSVN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for BondBloxx Bloomberg Five Year Target Duration US Treasury ETF (XFIV) and BondBloxx Bloomberg Seven Year Target Duration US Treasury ETF (XSVN). 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.


XFIVXSVNDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

1.01

0.91

+0.10

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

1.53

1.38

+0.15

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.18

1.16

+0.02

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

1.21

1.06

+0.16

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

3.61

3.18

+0.43

XFIV vs. XSVN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XFIV Sharpe Ratio is 1.01, which is comparable to the XSVN Sharpe Ratio of 0.91. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XFIV and XSVN, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


XFIVXSVNDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.01

0.91

+0.10

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.61

0.35

+0.26

Drawdowns

XFIV vs. XSVN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XFIV drawdown since its inception was -6.38%, smaller than the maximum XSVN drawdown of -9.45%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XFIV and XSVN.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


XFIVXSVNDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-6.38%

-9.45%

+3.07%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-2.91%

-4.01%

+1.10%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-4.47%

-7.09%

+2.62%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.15%

-2.75%

+0.60%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-1.66%

-2.55%

+0.89%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.97%

1.33%

-0.36%

Volatility

XFIV vs. XSVN - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for BondBloxx Bloomberg Five Year Target Duration US Treasury ETF (XFIV) is 1.09%, while BondBloxx Bloomberg Seven Year Target Duration US Treasury ETF (XSVN) has a volatility of 1.54%. This indicates that XFIV experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XSVN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


XFIVXSVNDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

1.09%

1.54%

-0.45%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

2.41%

3.22%

-0.81%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.48%

4.65%

-1.17%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

5.42%

7.19%

-1.77%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

5.42%

7.19%

-1.77%

XFIV vs. XSVN - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both XFIV and XSVN have an expense ratio of 0.05%, making them cost-effective options compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios typically range from 0.3% to 0.9%.


Dividends

XFIV vs. XSVN - Dividend Comparison

XFIV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.82%, less than XSVN's 4.10% yield.


PositionTTM2025202420232022
XFIV
BondBloxx Bloomberg Five Year Target Duration US Treasury ETF
3.82%4.05%3.92%3.63%1.06%
XSVN
BondBloxx Bloomberg Seven Year Target Duration US Treasury ETF
4.10%4.06%4.17%3.49%1.04%

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.98, XFIV and XSVN move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

XSVN has higher volatility (1.54%) compared to XFIV (1.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XFIV dropped -6.38% vs XSVN's -9.45%.

On 3-year performance, XFIV leads with 3.51% vs 2.75% for XSVN. Both ETFs have the same 0.05% expense ratio. On volatility, XFIV has been the lower-risk option at 1.09%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 3-year period, XFIV has performed better with a 3.51% return vs 2.75%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

XFIV and XSVN have the same expense ratio: 0.05% per year.

XSVN has the higher dividend yield at 4.10%, compared with 3.82% for XFIV.

XFIV tracks Bloomberg US Treasury 5 Year Target Duration Index, while XSVN tracks Bloomberg US Treasury 7 Year Target Duration Index.

XFIV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.01 vs 0.91), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for XFIV and XSVN

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer