ACES vs. BFOR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ACES (ALPS Clean Energy ETF) and BFOR (ALPS Barron's 400 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ACES is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the CIBC Atlas Clean Energy Index, while BFOR is a Mid Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Barron's 400 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, ACES returned -8.73%/yr vs 9.98%/yr for BFOR. A 0.68 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ACES charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for BFOR.

Performance

ACES vs. BFOR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES) and ALPS Barron's 400 ETF (BFOR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ACES achieves a 28.72% return, which is significantly higher than BFOR's 9.89% return.

ACES

• 1D: -2.84%
• 1M: 17.92%
• YTD: 28.72%
• 6M: 27.36%
• 1Y: 69.96%
• 3Y*: -1.21%
• 5Y*: -8.73%
• 10Y*: —

BFOR

• 1D: -0.49%
• 1M: 2.26%
• YTD: 9.89%
• 6M: 10.61%
• 1Y: 22.04%
• 3Y*: 19.35%
• 5Y*: 9.98%
• 10Y*: 12.37%

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

ACES vs. BFOR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
ACES ALPS Clean Energy ETF	28.72%	25.44%	-26.71%	-20.04%	-28.44%	-19.44%	140.33%	51.70%	-9.63%
BFOR ALPS Barron's 400 ETF	9.89%	13.85%	17.81%	18.19%	-15.92%	30.71%	17.60%	21.30%	-17.59%

Correlation

The correlation between ACES and BFOR is 0.63, 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	0.63
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.65
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.67
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 2, 2018	0.68

The correlation between ACES and BFOR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.63 to 0.68 - a consistent structural relationship.

ACES vs. BFOR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ACES	BFOR
Utilities	25.5%	1.9%
Technology	24.8%	18.8%
Industrials	20.3%	16.7%
Consumer Cyclical	11.1%	11.1%
Basic Materials	9.3%	2.8%
Financial Services	5.3%	21.3%
Consumer Defensive	3.2%	4.2%
Energy	0.5%	7.8%
Communication Services	-	3.6%
Healthcare	-	12.0%
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

ACES vs. BFOR — Risk / Return Rank

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

ACES

ACES Risk / Return Rank: 62
ACES Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
ACES Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
ACES Omega Ratio Rank: 53
ACES Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
ACES Martin Ratio Rank: 57

BFOR

BFOR Risk / Return Rank: 46
BFOR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 42
BFOR Sortino Ratio Rank: 44
BFOR Omega Ratio Rank: 40
BFOR Calmar Ratio Rank: 50
BFOR Martin Ratio Rank: 53

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.

ACES vs. BFOR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES) and ALPS Barron's 400 ETF (BFOR). 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.

	ACES	BFOR	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.18	1.50	+0.68
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.77	2.23	+0.54
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.26	+0.07
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.03	2.46	+1.57
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	10.16	9.02	+1.14
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ACES vs. BFOR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ACES Sharpe Ratio is 2.18, which is higher than the BFOR Sharpe Ratio of 1.50. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ACES and BFOR, 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

	ACES	BFOR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.18	1.50	+0.68
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.24	0.52	-0.76
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.61	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.22	0.59	-0.37

Drawdowns

ACES vs. BFOR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ACES drawdown since its inception was -79.05%, which is greater than BFOR's maximum drawdown of -41.27%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ACES and BFOR.

Drawdown Indicators

	ACES	BFOR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-79.05%	-41.27%	-37.78%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.44%	-8.98%	-8.46%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-58.68%	-21.91%	-36.77%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-74.44%	-25.93%	-48.51%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-41.27%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-56.41%	-0.49%	-55.92%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-38.87%	-6.43%	-32.44%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.91%	2.45%	+4.46%

Volatility

ACES vs. BFOR - Volatility Comparison

ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES) has a higher volatility of 9.99% compared to ALPS Barron's 400 ETF (BFOR) at 3.52%. This indicates that ACES's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BFOR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ACES	BFOR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	9.99%	3.52%	+6.47%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.55%	10.64%	+11.91%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	32.42%	14.80%	+17.62%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	36.17%	19.41%	+16.76%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	35.59%	20.41%	+15.18%

ACES vs. BFOR - Expense Ratio Comparison

ACES has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is lower than BFOR's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

ACES vs. BFOR - Dividend Comparison

ACES's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.54%, which matches BFOR's 0.54% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ACES ALPS Clean Energy ETF	0.54%	0.70%	1.10%	1.44%	1.08%	0.71%	0.56%	1.79%	0.34%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
BFOR ALPS Barron's 400 ETF	0.54%	0.60%	0.69%	1.26%	1.68%	0.92%	0.98%	0.69%	0.94%	0.60%	0.78%	0.86%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ACES and BFOR in my portfolio?

ACES and BFOR have a correlation of 0.63, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ACES or BFOR?

ACES has higher volatility (9.99%) compared to BFOR (3.52%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ACES dropped -79.05% vs BFOR's -41.27%.

Which ETF is better, ACES or BFOR?

On 5-year performance, BFOR leads with 9.98% vs -8.73% for ACES. On fees, ACES is cheaper at 0.55% per year. On volatility, BFOR has been the lower-risk option at 3.52%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ACES or BFOR?

Over the 5-year period, BFOR has performed better with a 9.98% return vs -8.73%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ACES or BFOR?

ACES is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for BFOR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ACES or BFOR?

ACES and BFOR have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.54%.

What is the main difference between ACES and BFOR?

ACES is categorized as Alternative Energy Equities, while BFOR is Mid Cap Blend Equities. ACES tracks CIBC Atlas Clean Energy Index, while BFOR tracks Barron's 400 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for ACES and 0.65% for BFOR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ACES currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.18 vs 1.50), 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.