PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
ACVF vs. AOA
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

ACVF vs. AOA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in American Conservative Values ETF (ACVF) and iShares Core 80/20 Aggressive Allocation ETF (AOA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with ACVF having a 8.21% return and AOA slightly lower at 8.19%.


ACVF

1D
-1.39%
1M
-0.01%
YTD
8.21%
6M
7.25%
1Y
16.84%
3Y*
18.14%
5Y*
11.76%
10Y*

AOA

1D
-1.54%
1M
-0.18%
YTD
8.19%
6M
7.63%
1Y
21.66%
3Y*
16.66%
5Y*
8.78%
10Y*
10.74%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ACVF vs. AOA - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
ACVF
American Conservative Values ETF
8.21%13.67%20.56%23.81%-15.74%28.84%14.93%
AOA
iShares Core 80/20 Aggressive Allocation ETF
8.19%19.59%13.55%18.27%-16.23%15.42%13.72%

Correlation

The correlation between ACVF and AOA is 0.91, 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

0.91

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.92

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.93

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 29, 2020

0.93

The correlation between ACVF and AOA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.91 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

ACVF vs. AOA — Risk / Return Rank

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

ACVF
ACVF Risk / Return Rank: 4545
Overall Rank
ACVF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4242
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ACVF Sortino Ratio Rank: 4141
Sortino Ratio Rank
ACVF Omega Ratio Rank: 4040
Omega Ratio Rank
ACVF Calmar Ratio Rank: 4747
Calmar Ratio Rank
ACVF Martin Ratio Rank: 5353
Martin Ratio Rank

AOA
AOA Risk / Return Rank: 6060
Overall Rank
AOA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6060
Sharpe Ratio Rank
AOA Sortino Ratio Rank: 5959
Sortino Ratio Rank
AOA Omega Ratio Rank: 6161
Omega Ratio Rank
AOA Calmar Ratio Rank: 5656
Calmar Ratio Rank
AOA Martin Ratio Rank: 6666
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

ACVF vs. AOA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for American Conservative Values ETF (ACVF) and iShares Core 80/20 Aggressive Allocation ETF (AOA). 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.


ACVFAOADifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.53

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.73

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.25

1.36

-0.11

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.20

2.65

-0.46

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

8.61

11.52

-2.90

ACVF vs. AOA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ACVF Sharpe Ratio is 1.40, which is comparable to the AOA Sharpe Ratio of 1.94. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ACVF and AOA, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

ACVF vs. AOA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ACVF drawdown since its inception was -24.39%, smaller than the maximum AOA drawdown of -28.38%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ACVF and AOA.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


ACVFAOADifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-24.39%

-28.38%

+3.99%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.70%

-8.20%

+0.50%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-16.82%

-12.94%

-3.88%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-24.39%

-23.62%

-0.77%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-28.38%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-2.67%

-2.08%

-0.59%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.72%

-4.04%

-0.68%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.96%

1.88%

+0.08%

Volatility

ACVF vs. AOA - Volatility Comparison

American Conservative Values ETF (ACVF) has a higher volatility of 4.97% compared to iShares Core 80/20 Aggressive Allocation ETF (AOA) at 4.43%. This indicates that ACVF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than AOA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


ACVFAOADifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.97%

4.43%

+0.54%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.92%

9.34%

+0.58%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

12.11%

11.25%

+0.86%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.35%

13.09%

+3.26%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.01%

13.51%

+2.50%

ACVF vs. AOA - Expense Ratio Comparison

ACVF has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than AOA's 0.15% expense ratio.


Dividends

ACVF vs. AOA - Dividend Comparison

ACVF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.55%, less than AOA's 2.08% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ACVF
American Conservative Values ETF
0.55%0.59%0.59%0.82%0.93%0.61%0.23%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
AOA
iShares Core 80/20 Aggressive Allocation ETF
2.08%2.18%2.30%2.22%2.10%1.67%1.71%2.50%2.37%5.09%2.26%2.15%

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.91, ACVF and AOA move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

ACVF has higher volatility (4.97%) compared to AOA (4.43%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ACVF dropped -24.39% vs AOA's -28.38%.

On 5-year performance, ACVF leads with 11.76% vs 8.78% for AOA. On fees, AOA is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, AOA has been the lower-risk option at 4.43%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, ACVF has performed better with a 11.76% return vs 8.78%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

AOA is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for ACVF.

AOA has the higher dividend yield at 2.08%, compared with 0.55% for ACVF.

ACVF is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while AOA is Diversified Portfolio. They also come from different issuers: Ridgeline Research LLC and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for ACVF and 0.15% for AOA.

AOA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.94 vs 1.40), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for ACVF and AOA

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer