ABFL vs. IUS

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ABFL (Abacus FCF Leaders ETF) and IUS (Invesco RAFI Strategic US ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. ABFL is actively managed, while IUS is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, ABFL returned 12.77%/yr vs 13.61%/yr for IUS. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. ABFL charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.19%/yr for IUS.

Performance

ABFL vs. IUS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Abacus FCF Leaders ETF (ABFL) and Invesco RAFI Strategic US ETF (IUS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ABFL achieves a 17.63% return, which is significantly higher than IUS's 15.71% return.

ABFL

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 6.04%
• YTD: 17.63%
• 6M: 17.18%
• 1Y: 20.72%
• 3Y*: 19.01%
• 5Y*: 12.77%
• 10Y*: —

IUS

• 1D: -0.07%
• 1M: 4.89%
• YTD: 15.71%
• 6M: 15.69%
• 1Y: 33.27%
• 3Y*: 20.93%
• 5Y*: 13.61%
• 10Y*: —

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

ABFL vs. IUS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
ABFL Abacus FCF Leaders ETF	17.63%	8.07%	18.26%	22.97%	-14.60%	30.66%	18.30%	26.03%	-18.03%
IUS Invesco RAFI Strategic US ETF	15.71%	16.94%	16.51%	20.79%	-8.34%	32.17%	15.09%	29.34%	-12.49%

Correlation

The correlation between ABFL and IUS is 0.77, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.77
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.85
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.90
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 13, 2018	0.83

The correlation between ABFL and IUS shifts across timeframes, from 0.77 (1 year) to 0.90 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

ABFL vs. IUS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ABFL	IUS
Technology	35.2%	22.4%
Industrials	20.9%	9.7%
Healthcare	12.5%	12.8%
Energy	7.9%	10.9%
Consumer Defensive	7.3%	7.4%
Consumer Cyclical	6.3%	10.7%
Basic Materials	4.3%	3.3%
Communication Services	2.9%	14.7%
Financial Services	2.8%	6.8%
Real Estate	-	0.5%
Utilities	-	1.0%

Return for Risk

ABFL vs. IUS — Risk / Return Rank

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

ABFL

ABFL Risk / Return Rank: 45
ABFL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
ABFL Sortino Ratio Rank: 37
ABFL Omega Ratio Rank: 36
ABFL Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
ABFL Martin Ratio Rank: 55

IUS

IUS Risk / Return Rank: 91
IUS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
IUS Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
IUS Omega Ratio Rank: 90
IUS Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
IUS Martin Ratio Rank: 92

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.

ABFL vs. IUS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Abacus FCF Leaders ETF (ABFL) and Invesco RAFI Strategic US ETF (IUS). 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.

	ABFL	IUS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.36	3.26	-1.90
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.91	4.53	-2.61
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.60	-0.36
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.90	5.44	-2.53
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.41	23.27	-13.86
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ABFL vs. IUS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ABFL Sharpe Ratio is 1.36, which is lower than the IUS Sharpe Ratio of 3.26. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ABFL and IUS, 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

	ABFL	IUS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.36	3.26	-1.90
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.75	0.91	-0.16
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.79	0.85	-0.07

Drawdowns

ABFL vs. IUS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ABFL drawdown since its inception was -34.95%, roughly equal to the maximum IUS drawdown of -34.67%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ABFL and IUS.

Drawdown Indicators

	ABFL	IUS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-34.95%	-34.67%	-0.28%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.17%	-6.15%	-1.02%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.92%	-15.61%	-4.31%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.88%	-18.72%	-3.16%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.07%	+0.07%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.99%	-3.86%	-1.13%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.21%	1.43%	+0.78%

Volatility

ABFL vs. IUS - Volatility Comparison

Abacus FCF Leaders ETF (ABFL) has a higher volatility of 4.48% compared to Invesco RAFI Strategic US ETF (IUS) at 2.50%. This indicates that ABFL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than IUS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ABFL	IUS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.48%	2.50%	+1.98%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.70%	7.41%	+4.29%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.31%	10.26%	+5.05%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.09%	15.00%	+2.09%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.71%	18.04%	+0.67%

ABFL vs. IUS - Expense Ratio Comparison

ABFL has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is higher than IUS's 0.19% expense ratio.

Dividends

ABFL vs. IUS - Dividend Comparison

ABFL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.53%, less than IUS's 1.28% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
ABFL Abacus FCF Leaders ETF	0.53%	0.62%	0.70%	0.94%	1.36%	9.63%	0.41%	0.72%	0.62%	0.40%
IUS Invesco RAFI Strategic US ETF	1.28%	1.48%	1.52%	1.72%	1.78%	1.46%	1.74%	1.77%	0.73%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ABFL and IUS in my portfolio?

ABFL and IUS have a correlation of 0.77, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ABFL or IUS?

ABFL has higher volatility (4.48%) compared to IUS (2.50%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ABFL dropped -34.95% vs IUS's -34.67%.

Which ETF is better, ABFL or IUS?

On 5-year performance, IUS leads with 13.61% vs 12.77% for ABFL. On fees, IUS is cheaper at 0.19% per year. On volatility, IUS has been the lower-risk option at 2.50%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ABFL or IUS?

Over the 5-year period, IUS has performed better with a 13.61% return vs 12.77%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ABFL or IUS?

IUS is cheaper with a 0.19% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for ABFL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ABFL or IUS?

IUS has the higher dividend yield at 1.28%, compared with 0.53% for ABFL.

What is the main difference between ABFL and IUS?

They also come from different issuers: Abacus and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for ABFL and 0.19% for IUS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IUS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.26 vs 1.36), 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.