ZTWO vs. BBBS

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

ZTWO (F/M 2-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF) and BBBS (Bondbloxx BBB Rated 1-5 Year Corporate Bond ETF) are both Short-Term Bond funds - ZTWO tracks the ICE 2-Year US Target Maturity Corporate Index - Benchmark TR Gross while BBBS tracks the Bloomberg U.S. Corporate BBB 1-5 Year Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, ZTWO returned 3.94% vs 4.44% for BBBS. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. ZTWO charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for BBBS.

Performance

ZTWO vs. BBBS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in F/M 2-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (ZTWO) and Bondbloxx BBB Rated 1-5 Year Corporate Bond ETF (BBBS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ZTWO achieves a 0.93% return, which is significantly higher than BBBS's 0.77% return.

ZTWO

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: 0.28%
• YTD: 0.93%
• 6M: 1.30%
• 1Y: 3.94%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

BBBS

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 0.23%
• YTD: 0.77%
• 6M: 1.23%
• 1Y: 4.44%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

ZTWO vs. BBBS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
ZTWO F/M 2-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF	0.93%	5.49%	0.36%
BBBS Bondbloxx BBB Rated 1-5 Year Corporate Bond ETF	0.77%	6.67%	0.38%

Correlation

The correlation between ZTWO and BBBS is 0.83, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.83
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 20, 2024	0.85

The correlation between ZTWO and BBBS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.83 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

ZTWO vs. BBBS — Risk / Return Rank

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

ZTWO

ZTWO Risk / Return Rank: 90
ZTWO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
ZTWO Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
ZTWO Omega Ratio Rank: 93
ZTWO Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
ZTWO Martin Ratio Rank: 89

BBBS

BBBS Risk / Return Rank: 74
BBBS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
BBBS Sortino Ratio Rank: 84
BBBS Omega Ratio Rank: 81
BBBS Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
BBBS Martin Ratio Rank: 69

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.

ZTWO vs. BBBS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for F/M 2-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (ZTWO) and Bondbloxx BBB Rated 1-5 Year Corporate Bond ETF (BBBS). 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.

	ZTWO	BBBS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.03	2.40	+0.64
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.86	3.73	+1.13
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.63	1.48	+0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.24	3.08	+1.16
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	20.10	12.59	+7.51
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ZTWO vs. BBBS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ZTWO Sharpe Ratio is 3.03, which is comparable to the BBBS Sharpe Ratio of 2.40. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ZTWO and BBBS, 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

	ZTWO	BBBS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.03	2.40	+0.64
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	3.17	2.37	+0.81

Drawdowns

ZTWO vs. BBBS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ZTWO drawdown since its inception was -0.93%, smaller than the maximum BBBS drawdown of -1.45%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ZTWO and BBBS.

Drawdown Indicators

	ZTWO	BBBS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-0.93%	-1.45%	+0.52%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-0.93%	-1.45%	+0.52%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.07%	-0.20%	+0.13%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.10%	-0.28%	+0.18%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.20%	0.35%	-0.15%

Volatility

ZTWO vs. BBBS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for F/M 2-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (ZTWO) is 0.42%, while Bondbloxx BBB Rated 1-5 Year Corporate Bond ETF (BBBS) has a volatility of 0.49%. This indicates that ZTWO experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BBBS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ZTWO	BBBS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.42%	0.49%	-0.07%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	0.97%	1.36%	-0.39%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.31%	1.87%	-0.56%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	1.49%	2.23%	-0.74%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	1.49%	2.23%	-0.74%

ZTWO vs. BBBS - Expense Ratio Comparison

ZTWO has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than BBBS's 0.19% 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

ZTWO vs. BBBS - Dividend Comparison

ZTWO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.12%, less than BBBS's 4.58% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
BBBS Bondbloxx BBB Rated 1-5 Year Corporate Bond ETF	4.58%	4.55%	4.31%
ZTWO F/M 2-Year Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF	4.12%	4.31%	0.39%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ZTWO and BBBS in my portfolio?

ZTWO and BBBS have a correlation of 0.83, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ZTWO or BBBS?

BBBS has higher volatility (0.49%) compared to ZTWO (0.42%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ZTWO dropped -0.93% vs BBBS's -1.45%.

Which ETF is better, ZTWO or BBBS?

On 1-year performance, BBBS leads with 4.44% vs 3.94% for ZTWO. On fees, ZTWO is cheaper at 0.15% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ZTWO or BBBS?

Over the 1-year period, BBBS has performed better with a 4.44% return vs 3.94%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ZTWO or BBBS?

ZTWO is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.19% for BBBS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ZTWO or BBBS?

BBBS has the higher dividend yield at 4.58%, compared with 4.12% for ZTWO.

What is the main difference between ZTWO and BBBS?

ZTWO tracks ICE 2-Year US Target Maturity Corporate Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while BBBS tracks Bloomberg U.S. Corporate BBB 1-5 Year Index. They also come from different issuers: F/m and BondBloxx. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for ZTWO and 0.19% for BBBS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ZTWO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.03 vs 2.40), 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.