AFSC vs. FDM

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

AFSC (abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF) and FDM (First Trust Dow Jones Select MicroCap Index Fund) are both Small Cap Blend Equities funds. AFSC is actively managed, while FDM is passively managed. Over the past year, AFSC returned 27.01% vs 27.59% for FDM. Their correlation of 0.81 suggests significant overlap in exposure. AFSC charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for FDM.

Performance

AFSC vs. FDM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF (AFSC) and First Trust Dow Jones Select MicroCap Index Fund (FDM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AFSC achieves a 16.58% return, which is significantly higher than FDM's 7.48% return.

AFSC

• 1D: -0.69%
• 1M: 1.96%
• YTD: 16.58%
• 6M: 13.48%
• 1Y: 27.01%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FDM

• 1D: -2.13%
• 1M: -2.89%
• YTD: 7.48%
• 6M: 7.77%
• 1Y: 27.59%
• 3Y*: 18.03%
• 5Y*: 8.37%
• 10Y*: 11.42%

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

AFSC vs. FDM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
AFSC abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF	16.58%	2.67%
FDM First Trust Dow Jones Select MicroCap Index Fund	7.48%	12.71%

Correlation

The correlation between AFSC and FDM is 0.78, 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	0.78
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 19, 2025	0.81

The correlation between AFSC and FDM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.78 to 0.81 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

AFSC vs. FDM — Risk / Return Rank

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

AFSC

AFSC Risk / Return Rank: 47
AFSC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 42
AFSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 42
AFSC Omega Ratio Rank: 38
AFSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 54
AFSC Martin Ratio Rank: 57

FDM

FDM Risk / Return Rank: 47
FDM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 41
FDM Sortino Ratio Rank: 43
FDM Omega Ratio Rank: 39
FDM Calmar Ratio Rank: 60
FDM Martin Ratio Rank: 52

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.

AFSC vs. FDM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF (AFSC) and First Trust Dow Jones Select MicroCap Index Fund (FDM). 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.

	AFSC	FDM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.46	1.47	-0.01
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.11	2.18	-0.07
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.26	-0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.64	2.98	-0.34
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.96	9.04	+0.92
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

AFSC vs. FDM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AFSC Sharpe Ratio is 1.46, which is comparable to the FDM Sharpe Ratio of 1.47. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AFSC and FDM, 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

	AFSC	FDM	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.46	1.47	-0.01
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.39	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.49	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.67	0.34	+0.32

Drawdowns

AFSC vs. FDM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AFSC drawdown since its inception was -21.68%, smaller than the maximum FDM drawdown of -63.45%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AFSC and FDM.

Drawdown Indicators

	AFSC	FDM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.68%	-63.45%	+41.77%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.29%	-9.30%	-0.99%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-23.47%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-23.74%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-47.76%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.79%	-4.31%	+2.52%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.15%	-11.35%	+7.20%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.72%	3.06%	-0.34%

Volatility

AFSC vs. FDM - Volatility Comparison

abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF (AFSC) has a higher volatility of 5.49% compared to First Trust Dow Jones Select MicroCap Index Fund (FDM) at 4.50%. This indicates that AFSC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FDM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AFSC	FDM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.49%	4.50%	+0.99%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.99%	13.22%	+0.77%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.59%	18.90%	-0.31%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.57%	21.39%	+1.18%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.57%	23.36%	-0.79%

AFSC vs. FDM - Expense Ratio Comparison

AFSC has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than FDM's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

AFSC vs. FDM - Dividend Comparison

AFSC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.07%, less than FDM's 1.28% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
AFSC abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF	0.07%	0.08%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FDM First Trust Dow Jones Select MicroCap Index Fund	1.28%	1.43%	1.56%	1.81%	1.80%	1.08%	1.68%	1.37%	1.26%	0.97%	1.13%	1.45%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AFSC and FDM in my portfolio?

AFSC and FDM have a correlation of 0.78, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, AFSC or FDM?

AFSC has higher volatility (5.49%) compared to FDM (4.50%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AFSC dropped -21.68% vs FDM's -63.45%.

Which ETF is better, AFSC or FDM?

On 1-year performance, FDM leads with 27.59% vs 27.01% for AFSC. On fees, FDM is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, FDM has been the lower-risk option at 4.50%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AFSC or FDM?

Over the 1-year period, FDM has performed better with a 27.59% return vs 27.01%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AFSC or FDM?

FDM is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for AFSC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, AFSC or FDM?

FDM has the higher dividend yield at 1.28%, compared with 0.07% for AFSC.

What is the main difference between AFSC and FDM?

They also come from different issuers: Aberdeen and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for AFSC and 0.60% for FDM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FDM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.47 vs 1.46), 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.