ABFL vs. VOTE

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ABFL (Abacus FCF Leaders ETF) and VOTE (Engine No. 1 Transform 500 ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. ABFL is actively managed, while VOTE is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, ABFL returned 19.01%/yr vs 22.81%/yr for VOTE. Their correlation of 0.93 suggests significant overlap in exposure. ABFL charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.05%/yr for VOTE.

Performance

ABFL vs. VOTE - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Abacus FCF Leaders ETF (ABFL) and Engine No. 1 Transform 500 ETF (VOTE). 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 VOTE's 11.03% return.

ABFL

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

VOTE

• 1D: -0.70%
• 1M: 5.23%
• YTD: 11.03%
• 6M: 11.00%
• 1Y: 28.11%
• 3Y*: 22.81%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

ABFL vs. VOTE - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
ABFL Abacus FCF Leaders ETF	17.63%	8.07%	18.26%	22.97%	-14.60%	15.12%
VOTE Engine No. 1 Transform 500 ETF	11.03%	17.95%	25.23%	27.60%	-19.74%	12.08%

Correlation

The correlation between ABFL and VOTE is 0.84, 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	0.84
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.89
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 24, 2021	0.93

The correlation between ABFL and VOTE has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.84 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

ABFL vs. VOTE - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ABFL	VOTE
Technology	35.2%	35.5%
Industrials	20.9%	8.5%
Healthcare	12.5%	8.6%
Energy	7.9%	3.6%
Consumer Defensive	7.3%	4.8%
Consumer Cyclical	6.3%	10.2%
Basic Materials	4.3%	1.8%
Communication Services	2.9%	11.3%
Financial Services	2.8%	11.7%
Real Estate	-	1.8%
Utilities	-	2.3%

Return for Risk

ABFL vs. VOTE — 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

VOTE

VOTE Risk / Return Rank: 69
VOTE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
VOTE Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
VOTE Omega Ratio Rank: 69
VOTE Calmar Ratio Rank: 62
VOTE Martin Ratio Rank: 74

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. VOTE - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Abacus FCF Leaders ETF (ABFL) and Engine No. 1 Transform 500 ETF (VOTE). 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	VOTE	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.36	2.34	-0.98
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.91	3.19	-1.28
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.42	-0.18
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.90	3.10	-0.20
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.41	14.23	-4.82
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. VOTE - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ABFL Sharpe Ratio is 1.36, which is lower than the VOTE Sharpe Ratio of 2.34. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ABFL and VOTE, 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	VOTE	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.36	2.34	-0.98
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.75	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.79	0.80	-0.01

Drawdowns

ABFL vs. VOTE - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ABFL drawdown since its inception was -34.95%, which is greater than VOTE's maximum drawdown of -25.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ABFL and VOTE.

Drawdown Indicators

	ABFL	VOTE	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-34.95%	-25.71%	-9.24%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.17%	-9.10%	+1.93%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.92%	-19.08%	-0.84%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.88%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.70%	+0.70%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.99%	-6.14%	+1.15%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.21%	1.98%	+0.23%

Volatility

ABFL vs. VOTE - Volatility Comparison

Abacus FCF Leaders ETF (ABFL) has a higher volatility of 4.48% compared to Engine No. 1 Transform 500 ETF (VOTE) at 2.96%. This indicates that ABFL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than VOTE based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ABFL	VOTE	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.48%	2.96%	+1.52%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.70%	9.20%	+2.50%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.31%	12.08%	+3.23%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.09%	17.15%	-0.06%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.71%	17.15%	+1.56%

ABFL vs. VOTE - Expense Ratio Comparison

ABFL has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is higher than VOTE's 0.05% expense ratio.

Dividends

ABFL vs. VOTE - Dividend Comparison

ABFL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.53%, less than VOTE's 0.90% 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%
VOTE Engine No. 1 Transform 500 ETF	0.90%	1.03%	1.18%	1.33%	1.54%	0.54%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ABFL and VOTE in my portfolio?

ABFL and VOTE have a correlation of 0.84, 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 VOTE?

ABFL has higher volatility (4.48%) compared to VOTE (2.96%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ABFL dropped -34.95% vs VOTE's -25.71%.

Which ETF is better, ABFL or VOTE?

On 3-year performance, VOTE leads with 22.81% vs 19.01% for ABFL. On fees, VOTE is cheaper at 0.05% per year. On volatility, VOTE has been the lower-risk option at 2.96%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ABFL or VOTE?

Over the 3-year period, VOTE has performed better with a 22.81% return vs 19.01%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ABFL or VOTE?

VOTE is cheaper with a 0.05% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for ABFL.

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

VOTE has the higher dividend yield at 0.90%, compared with 0.53% for ABFL.

What is the main difference between ABFL and VOTE?

They also come from different issuers: Abacus and Engine No. 1 LLC. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for ABFL and 0.05% for VOTE.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

VOTE currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.34 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.