AFSC vs. ROSC

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

AFSC (abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF) and ROSC (Hartford Multifactor Small Cap ETF) are both Small Cap Blend Equities funds. AFSC is actively managed, while ROSC is passively managed. Over the past year, AFSC returned 34.76% vs 34.90% for ROSC. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. AFSC charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.34%/yr for ROSC.

Performance

AFSC vs. ROSC - 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 Hartford Multifactor Small Cap ETF (ROSC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AFSC achieves a 24.40% return, which is significantly higher than ROSC's 16.64% return.

AFSC

• 1D: -1.29%
• 1M: 6.74%
• YTD: 24.40%
• 6M: 19.46%
• 1Y: 34.76%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ROSC

• 1D: 0.51%
• 1M: 3.56%
• YTD: 16.64%
• 6M: 14.85%
• 1Y: 34.90%
• 3Y*: 17.42%
• 5Y*: 8.95%
• 10Y*: 11.36%

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

AFSC vs. ROSC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
AFSC abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF	24.40%	2.33%
ROSC Hartford Multifactor Small Cap ETF	16.64%	8.47%

Correlation

The correlation between AFSC and ROSC is 0.85, 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	0.85
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 18, 2025	0.86

The correlation between AFSC and ROSC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

AFSC vs. ROSC — Risk / Return Rank

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

AFSC

AFSC Risk / Return Rank: 65
AFSC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 61
AFSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
AFSC Omega Ratio Rank: 53
AFSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
AFSC Martin Ratio Rank: 75

ROSC

ROSC Risk / Return Rank: 79
ROSC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
ROSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 81
ROSC Omega Ratio Rank: 73
ROSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
ROSC Martin Ratio Rank: 80

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. ROSC - 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 Hartford Multifactor Small Cap ETF (ROSC). 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.

	AFSC	ROSC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.84	2.27	-0.43
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.60	3.30	-0.70
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.40	-0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.40	4.52	-1.13
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.89	14.75	-1.86

AFSC vs. ROSC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AFSC Sharpe Ratio is 1.84, which is comparable to the ROSC Sharpe Ratio of 2.27. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AFSC and ROSC, 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

AFSC vs. ROSC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AFSC drawdown since its inception was -21.93%, smaller than the maximum ROSC drawdown of -43.13%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AFSC and ROSC.

Drawdown Indicators

	AFSC	ROSC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.93%	-43.13%	+21.20%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.29%	-7.75%	-2.54%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-23.74%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-23.74%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-43.13%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.29%	-0.33%	-0.96%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.12%	-7.18%	+3.06%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.70%	2.37%	+0.33%

Volatility

AFSC vs. ROSC - Volatility Comparison

abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF (AFSC) has a higher volatility of 5.46% compared to Hartford Multifactor Small Cap ETF (ROSC) at 3.54%. This indicates that AFSC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ROSC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	AFSC	ROSC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.46%	3.54%	+1.92%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.59%	10.40%	+4.19%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.01%	15.53%	+3.48%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.51%	19.29%	+3.22%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.51%	20.24%	+2.27%

AFSC vs. ROSC - Expense Ratio Comparison

AFSC has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than ROSC's 0.34% expense ratio.

Dividends

AFSC vs. ROSC - Dividend Comparison

AFSC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.06%, less than ROSC's 1.79% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
AFSC abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF	0.06%	0.08%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
ROSC Hartford Multifactor Small Cap ETF	1.79%	2.08%	2.00%	2.01%	1.51%	2.13%	1.75%	3.05%	2.86%	2.13%	2.20%	2.48%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AFSC and ROSC in my portfolio?

AFSC and ROSC have a correlation of 0.85, 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 ROSC?

AFSC has higher volatility (5.46%) compared to ROSC (3.54%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AFSC dropped -21.93% vs ROSC's -43.13%.

Which ETF is better, AFSC or ROSC?

On 1-year performance, ROSC leads with 34.90% vs 34.76% for AFSC. On fees, ROSC is cheaper at 0.34% per year. On volatility, ROSC has been the lower-risk option at 3.54%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AFSC or ROSC?

Over the 1-year period, ROSC has performed better with a 34.90% return vs 34.76%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AFSC or ROSC?

ROSC is cheaper with a 0.34% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for AFSC.

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

ROSC has the higher dividend yield at 1.79%, compared with 0.06% for AFSC.

What is the main difference between AFSC and ROSC?

They also come from different issuers: Aberdeen and Hartford. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for AFSC and 0.34% for ROSC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ROSC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.27 vs 1.84), 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.