AFSC vs. VTWO
AFSC (abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF) and VTWO (Vanguard Russell 2000 ETF) are both Small Cap Blend Equities funds. AFSC is actively managed, while VTWO is passively managed. Over the past year, AFSC returned 27.01% vs 39.34% for VTWO. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. AFSC charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.06%/yr for VTWO.
Performance
AFSC vs. VTWO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with AFSC having a 16.58% return and VTWO slightly higher at 17.08%.
AFSC
- 1D
- -0.69%
- 1M
- 1.96%
- YTD
- 16.58%
- 6M
- 13.48%
- 1Y
- 27.01%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
VTWO
- 1D
- -1.38%
- 1M
- 3.51%
- YTD
- 17.08%
- 6M
- 15.89%
- 1Y
- 39.34%
- 3Y*
- 18.11%
- 5Y*
- 6.28%
- 10Y*
- 11.07%
AFSC vs. VTWO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
AFSC abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF | 16.58% | 2.67% |
VTWO Vanguard Russell 2000 ETF | 17.08% | 9.72% |
Correlation
The correlation between AFSC and VTWO is 0.90, 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 | 0.90 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 19, 2025 | 0.91 |
The correlation between AFSC and VTWO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.90 to 0.91 - 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
AFSC vs. VTWO — Risk / Return Rank
AFSC
VTWO
AFSC vs. VTWO - 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 Vanguard Russell 2000 ETF (VTWO). 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 | VTWO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.61 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -0.77 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.25 | 1.34 | -0.09 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.64 | 3.60 | -0.96 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 9.96 | 12.79 | -2.83 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| AFSC | VTWO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.46 | 2.07 | -0.61 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.28 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.48 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.67 | 0.52 | +0.14 |
Drawdowns
AFSC vs. VTWO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum AFSC drawdown since its inception was -21.68%, smaller than the maximum VTWO drawdown of -41.19%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AFSC and VTWO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| AFSC | VTWO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -21.68% | -41.19% | +19.51% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -10.29% | -10.99% | +0.70% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -27.57% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -31.88% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -41.19% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.79% | -1.50% | -0.29% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.15% | -8.39% | +4.24% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.72% | 3.08% | -0.36% |
Volatility
AFSC vs. VTWO - Volatility Comparison
abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF (AFSC) and Vanguard Russell 2000 ETF (VTWO) have volatilities of 5.49% and 5.73%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| AFSC | VTWO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.49% | 5.73% | -0.24% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 13.99% | 13.50% | +0.49% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 18.59% | 19.12% | -0.53% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 22.57% | 22.48% | +0.09% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 22.57% | 23.08% | -0.51% |
AFSC vs. VTWO - Expense Ratio Comparison
AFSC has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than VTWO's 0.06% expense ratio.
Dividends
AFSC vs. VTWO - Dividend Comparison
AFSC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.07%, less than VTWO's 1.08% 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% |
VTWO Vanguard Russell 2000 ETF | 1.08% | 1.25% | 1.21% | 1.45% | 1.48% | 1.13% | 0.92% | 1.36% | 1.41% | 1.18% | 1.27% | 1.23% |
Frequently Asked Questions
AFSC and VTWO have a correlation of 0.90, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
VTWO has higher volatility (5.73%) compared to AFSC (5.49%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AFSC dropped -21.68% vs VTWO's -41.19%.
On 1-year performance, VTWO leads with 39.34% vs 27.01% for AFSC. On fees, VTWO is cheaper at 0.06% per year. On volatility, AFSC has been the lower-risk option at 5.49%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, VTWO has performed better with a 39.34% return vs 27.01%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
VTWO is cheaper with a 0.06% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for AFSC.
VTWO has the higher dividend yield at 1.08%, compared with 0.07% for AFSC.
They also come from different issuers: Aberdeen and Vanguard. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for AFSC and 0.06% for VTWO.
VTWO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.07 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.
Find the right allocation for AFSC and VTWO
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