ZTEN vs. RBIL
ZTEN (F/M 10-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF) and RBIL (F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ZTEN is a Long-Term Bond fund tracking the ICE 10-Year US Target Maturity Corporate Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while RBIL is a Inflation-Protected Bonds fund tracking the Bloomberg US Ultrashort TIPS 1-13 Months Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, ZTEN returned 6.84% vs 4.57% for RBIL. At a correlation of -0.15, they often move in opposite directions. ZTEN charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.17%/yr for RBIL.
Performance
ZTEN vs. RBIL - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ZTEN achieves a 0.17% return, which is significantly lower than RBIL's 2.70% return.
ZTEN
- 1D
- -0.28%
- 1M
- 0.40%
- YTD
- 0.17%
- 6M
- 0.05%
- 1Y
- 6.84%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
RBIL
- 1D
- 0.06%
- 1M
- 0.38%
- YTD
- 2.70%
- 6M
- 2.79%
- 1Y
- 4.57%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
ZTEN vs. RBIL - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
ZTEN F/M 10-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF | 0.17% | 6.50% |
RBIL F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF | 2.70% | 2.91% |
Correlation
The correlation between ZTEN and RBIL is -0.22, 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 | -0.22 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 26, 2025 | -0.15 |
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
ZTEN vs. RBIL — Risk / Return Rank
ZTEN
RBIL
ZTEN vs. RBIL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for F/M 10-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (ZTEN) and F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL). 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.
| ZTEN | RBIL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -3.64 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -5.91 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.24 | 2.39 | -1.14 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.07 | 17.00 | -14.93 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 6.72 | 70.66 | -63.94 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| ZTEN | RBIL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.38 | 5.01 | -3.64 |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 1.15 | 4.28 | -3.13 |
Drawdowns
ZTEN vs. RBIL - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ZTEN drawdown since its inception was -3.43%, which is greater than RBIL's maximum drawdown of -0.50%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZTEN and RBIL.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ZTEN | RBIL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -3.43% | -0.50% | -2.93% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -3.32% | -0.27% | -3.05% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.46% | 0.00% | -1.46% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.78% | -0.06% | -0.72% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.02% | 0.07% | +0.95% |
Volatility
ZTEN vs. RBIL - Volatility Comparison
F/M 10-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (ZTEN) has a higher volatility of 1.61% compared to F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF (RBIL) at 0.30%. This indicates that ZTEN's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RBIL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ZTEN | RBIL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.61% | 0.30% | +1.31% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 3.77% | 0.79% | +2.98% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 4.99% | 0.92% | +4.07% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 5.80% | 1.05% | +4.75% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 5.80% | 1.05% | +4.75% |
ZTEN vs. RBIL - Expense Ratio Comparison
ZTEN has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than RBIL's 0.17% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.
Dividends
ZTEN vs. RBIL - Dividend Comparison
ZTEN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.08%, more than RBIL's 4.60% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 |
|---|---|---|---|
RBIL F/m Ultrashort Treasury Inflation-Protected Security (TIPS) ETF | 4.60% | 3.65% | 0.00% |
ZTEN F/M 10-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF | 5.08% | 5.16% | 0.44% |
Frequently Asked Questions
ZTEN and RBIL have a correlation of -0.22, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
ZTEN has higher volatility (1.61%) compared to RBIL (0.30%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ZTEN dropped -3.43% vs RBIL's -0.50%.
On 1-year performance, ZTEN leads with 6.84% vs 4.57% for RBIL. On fees, ZTEN is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, RBIL has been the lower-risk option at 0.30%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, ZTEN has performed better with a 6.84% return vs 4.57%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
ZTEN is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.17% for RBIL.
ZTEN has the higher dividend yield at 5.08%, compared with 4.60% for RBIL.
ZTEN is categorized as Long-Term Bond, while RBIL is Inflation-Protected Bonds. ZTEN tracks ICE 10-Year US Target Maturity Corporate Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while RBIL tracks Bloomberg US Ultrashort TIPS 1-13 Months Index. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for ZTEN and 0.17% for RBIL.
RBIL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (5.01 vs 1.38), 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.
Find the right allocation for ZTEN and RBIL
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