ACES vs. RFFC

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

ACES (ALPS Clean Energy ETF) and RFFC (ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ACES is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the CIBC Atlas Clean Energy Index, while RFFC is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by SS&C. ACES is passively managed, while RFFC is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, ACES returned -12.89%/yr vs 11.91%/yr for RFFC. A 0.64 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ACES charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.48%/yr for RFFC.

Performance

ACES vs. RFFC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES) and ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF (RFFC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ACES achieves a 9.28% return, which is significantly lower than RFFC's 10.13% return.

ACES

• 1D: -4.61%
• 1M: -9.51%
• YTD: 9.28%
• 6M: 4.82%
• 1Y: 42.77%
• 3Y*: -5.11%
• 5Y*: -12.89%
• 10Y*: —

RFFC

• 1D: -0.84%
• 1M: 0.61%
• YTD: 10.13%
• 6M: 9.43%
• 1Y: 27.11%
• 3Y*: 20.79%
• 5Y*: 11.91%
• 10Y*: 12.66%

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

ACES vs. RFFC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
ACES ALPS Clean Energy ETF	9.28%	25.44%	-26.71%	-20.04%	-28.44%	-19.44%	140.33%	51.70%	-9.81%
RFFC ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF	10.13%	16.83%	23.51%	19.50%	-14.58%	22.33%	12.48%	24.77%	-14.68%

Correlation

The correlation between ACES and RFFC is 0.59, 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	0.59
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.55
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.62
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 29, 2018	0.64

The correlation between ACES and RFFC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.55 to 0.64 - a consistent structural relationship.

ACES vs. RFFC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ACES	RFFC
Technology	30.1%	33.0%
Utilities	23.8%	2.4%
Industrials	21.6%	12.2%
Consumer Cyclical	9.9%	9.3%
Basic Materials	7.3%	2.3%
Financial Services	4.4%	10.9%
Consumer Defensive	2.5%	2.7%
Energy	0.4%	4.8%
Communication Services	-	8.7%
Healthcare	-	11.7%
Real Estate	-	2.0%

Return for Risk

ACES vs. RFFC — Risk / Return Rank

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

ACES

ACES Risk / Return Rank: 39
ACES Sharpe Ratio Rank: 37
ACES Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
ACES Omega Ratio Rank: 34
ACES Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
ACES Martin Ratio Rank: 39

RFFC

RFFC Risk / Return Rank: 72
RFFC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
RFFC Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
RFFC Omega Ratio Rank: 72
RFFC Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
RFFC Martin Ratio Rank: 76

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. RFFC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES) and ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF (RFFC). 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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	ACES	RFFC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.27	2.19	-0.93
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.79	3.06	-1.27
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.39	-0.17
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.41	2.94	-0.53
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.66	13.37	-7.72

ACES vs. RFFC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ACES Sharpe Ratio is 1.27, which is lower than the RFFC Sharpe Ratio of 2.19. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ACES and RFFC, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

ACES vs. RFFC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ACES drawdown since its inception was -79.05%, which is greater than RFFC's maximum drawdown of -36.26%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ACES and RFFC.

Drawdown Indicators

	ACES	RFFC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-79.05%	-36.26%	-42.79%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.82%	-9.25%	-8.57%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-58.68%	-18.45%	-40.23%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-74.44%	-22.29%	-52.15%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-36.26%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-63.00%	-1.55%	-61.45%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-38.99%	-5.00%	-33.99%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.58%	2.03%	+5.55%

Volatility

ACES vs. RFFC - Volatility Comparison

ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES) has a higher volatility of 14.00% compared to ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF (RFFC) at 4.25%. This indicates that ACES's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RFFC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ACES	RFFC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	14.00%	4.25%	+9.75%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	25.21%	9.88%	+15.33%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	33.93%	12.45%	+21.48%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	36.52%	16.33%	+20.19%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	35.72%	18.01%	+17.71%

ACES vs. RFFC - Expense Ratio Comparison

ACES has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than RFFC's 0.48% expense ratio.

Dividends

ACES vs. RFFC - Dividend Comparison

ACES's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.63%, less than RFFC's 0.64% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
ACES ALPS Clean Energy ETF	0.63%	0.70%	1.10%	1.44%	1.08%	0.71%	0.56%	1.79%	0.34%	0.00%	0.00%
RFFC ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF	0.64%	0.78%	1.05%	1.35%	1.41%	0.71%	1.79%	1.34%	1.36%	0.93%	0.66%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ACES and RFFC in my portfolio?

ACES and RFFC have a correlation of 0.59, 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 RFFC?

ACES has higher volatility (14.00%) compared to RFFC (4.25%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ACES dropped -79.05% vs RFFC's -36.26%.

Which ETF is better, ACES or RFFC?

On 5-year performance, RFFC leads with 11.91% vs -12.89% for ACES. On fees, RFFC is cheaper at 0.48% per year. On volatility, RFFC has been the lower-risk option at 4.25%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ACES or RFFC?

Over the 5-year period, RFFC has performed better with a 11.91% return vs -12.89%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ACES or RFFC?

RFFC is cheaper with a 0.48% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for ACES.

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

RFFC has the higher dividend yield at 0.64%, compared with 0.63% for ACES.

What is the main difference between ACES and RFFC?

ACES is categorized as Alternative Energy Equities, while RFFC is Large Cap Blend Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for ACES and 0.48% for RFFC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RFFC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.19 vs 1.27), 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.