AFMC vs. FLDZ

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

AFMC (First Trust Active Factor Mid Cap ETF) and FLDZ (RiverNorth Patriot ETF) are both Mid Cap Blend Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, AFMC returned 20.73%/yr vs 13.19%/yr for FLDZ. Their correlation of 0.93 suggests significant overlap in exposure. AFMC charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.77%/yr for FLDZ.

Performance

AFMC vs. FLDZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Active Factor Mid Cap ETF (AFMC) and RiverNorth Patriot ETF (FLDZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AFMC achieves a 16.54% return, which is significantly higher than FLDZ's 4.32% return.

AFMC

• 1D: 0.05%
• 1M: 4.34%
• YTD: 16.54%
• 6M: 17.09%
• 1Y: 28.05%
• 3Y*: 20.73%
• 5Y*: 10.49%
• 10Y*: —

FLDZ

• 1D: -0.20%
• 1M: -0.80%
• YTD: 4.32%
• 6M: 3.13%
• 1Y: 8.06%
• 3Y*: 13.19%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

AFMC vs. FLDZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
AFMC First Trust Active Factor Mid Cap ETF	16.54%	10.23%	19.06%	21.46%	-15.39%
FLDZ RiverNorth Patriot ETF	4.32%	6.66%	15.99%	12.15%	-11.99%

Correlation

The correlation between AFMC and FLDZ is 0.87, 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	0.87
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.92
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 4, 2022	0.93

The correlation between AFMC and FLDZ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.87 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

AFMC vs. FLDZ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	AFMC	FLDZ
Technology	20.8%	3.4%
Industrials	17.5%	12.1%
Consumer Cyclical	13.8%	14.8%
Healthcare	12.3%	11.7%
Financial Services	11.2%	15.1%
Real Estate	5.9%	8.3%
Basic Materials	5.6%	1.6%
Consumer Defensive	5.2%	4.8%
Energy	3.7%	11.5%
Communication Services	1.9%	4.6%
Utilities	1.5%	11.9%

Return for Risk

AFMC vs. FLDZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

AFMC

AFMC Risk / Return Rank: 61
AFMC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
AFMC Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
AFMC Omega Ratio Rank: 54
AFMC Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
AFMC Martin Ratio Rank: 67

FLDZ

FLDZ Risk / Return Rank: 24
FLDZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 22
FLDZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 21
FLDZ Omega Ratio Rank: 20
FLDZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
FLDZ Martin Ratio Rank: 28

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.

AFMC vs. FLDZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Active Factor Mid Cap ETF (AFMC) and RiverNorth Patriot ETF (FLDZ). 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.

	AFMC	FLDZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.89	0.72	+1.17
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.74	1.10	+1.64
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.13	+0.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.43	1.30	+2.14
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.40	3.94	+8.46
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

AFMC vs. FLDZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AFMC Sharpe Ratio is 1.89, which is higher than the FLDZ Sharpe Ratio of 0.72. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AFMC and FLDZ, 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

	AFMC	FLDZ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.89	0.72	+1.17
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.56	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.54	0.34	+0.21

Drawdowns

AFMC vs. FLDZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AFMC drawdown since its inception was -42.14%, which is greater than FLDZ's maximum drawdown of -19.54%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AFMC and FLDZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	AFMC	FLDZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-42.14%	-19.54%	-22.60%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.20%	-6.25%	-1.95%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.99%	-17.43%	-4.56%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.40%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-1.72%	+1.72%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.62%	-5.98%	-1.64%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.27%	2.05%	+0.22%

Volatility

AFMC vs. FLDZ - Volatility Comparison

First Trust Active Factor Mid Cap ETF (AFMC) has a higher volatility of 4.71% compared to RiverNorth Patriot ETF (FLDZ) at 2.57%. This indicates that AFMC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FLDZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AFMC	FLDZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.71%	2.57%	+2.14%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.00%	7.63%	+3.37%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.94%	11.31%	+3.63%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.96%	16.91%	+2.05%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.93%	16.91%	+6.02%

AFMC vs. FLDZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

AFMC has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is lower than FLDZ's 0.77% expense ratio.

Dividends

AFMC vs. FLDZ - Dividend Comparison

AFMC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.78%, less than FLDZ's 1.48% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
AFMC First Trust Active Factor Mid Cap ETF	0.78%	0.96%	0.64%	0.87%	1.42%	0.84%	1.05%	0.29%
FLDZ RiverNorth Patriot ETF	1.48%	1.54%	1.17%	1.39%	1.52%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AFMC and FLDZ in my portfolio?

AFMC and FLDZ have a correlation of 0.87, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, AFMC or FLDZ?

AFMC has higher volatility (4.71%) compared to FLDZ (2.57%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AFMC dropped -42.14% vs FLDZ's -19.54%.

Which ETF is better, AFMC or FLDZ?

On 3-year performance, AFMC leads with 20.73% vs 13.19% for FLDZ. On fees, AFMC is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, FLDZ has been the lower-risk option at 2.57%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AFMC or FLDZ?

Over the 3-year period, AFMC has performed better with a 20.73% return vs 13.19%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AFMC or FLDZ?

AFMC is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.77% for FLDZ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, AFMC or FLDZ?

FLDZ has the higher dividend yield at 1.48%, compared with 0.78% for AFMC.

What is the main difference between AFMC and FLDZ?

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and RiverNorth. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for AFMC and 0.77% for FLDZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

AFMC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.89 vs 0.72), 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.