AFSM vs. SCDS

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

AFSM (First Trust Active Factor Small Cap ETF) and SCDS (JPMorgan Fundamental Data Science Small Core ETF) are both Small Cap Blend Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, AFSM returned 30.17% vs 42.67% for SCDS. With a 0.96 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. AFSM charges 0.77%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for SCDS.

Performance

AFSM vs. SCDS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Active Factor Small Cap ETF (AFSM) and JPMorgan Fundamental Data Science Small Core ETF (SCDS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, AFSM achieves a 15.65% return, which is significantly lower than SCDS's 22.66% return.

AFSM

• 1D: -0.99%
• 1M: 3.29%
• YTD: 15.65%
• 6M: 15.19%
• 1Y: 30.17%
• 3Y*: 17.93%
• 5Y*: 8.53%
• 10Y*: —

SCDS

• 1D: -0.76%
• 1M: 6.01%
• YTD: 22.66%
• 6M: 21.54%
• 1Y: 42.67%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

AFSM vs. SCDS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
AFSM First Trust Active Factor Small Cap ETF	15.65%	9.99%	5.18%
SCDS JPMorgan Fundamental Data Science Small Core ETF	22.66%	11.27%	7.26%

Correlation

The correlation between AFSM and SCDS is 0.96 - these two move nearly in lockstep. At this level, holding both provides almost no diversification benefit. If you already own one, adding the other does little to reduce portfolio risk.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.96
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 9, 2024	0.96

The correlation between AFSM and SCDS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.96 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.

AFSM vs. SCDS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	AFSM	SCDS
Technology	20.3%	20.8%
Healthcare	17.8%	11.0%
Industrials	16.9%	14.6%
Financial Services	14.9%	14.7%
Consumer Cyclical	8.6%	10.7%
Energy	5.3%	3.9%
Basic Materials	4.9%	3.2%
Consumer Defensive	4.7%	2.2%
Real Estate	3.8%	4.9%
Communication Services	2.3%	1.6%
Utilities	0.3%	2.4%

Return for Risk

AFSM vs. SCDS — Risk / Return Rank

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

AFSM

AFSM Risk / Return Rank: 54
AFSM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 49
AFSM Sortino Ratio Rank: 50
AFSM Omega Ratio Rank: 46
AFSM Calmar Ratio Rank: 64
AFSM Martin Ratio Rank: 59

SCDS

SCDS Risk / Return Rank: 77
SCDS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
SCDS Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
SCDS Omega Ratio Rank: 67
SCDS Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
SCDS Martin Ratio Rank: 83

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.

AFSM vs. SCDS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Active Factor Small Cap ETF (AFSM) and JPMorgan Fundamental Data Science Small Core ETF (SCDS). 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.

	AFSM	SCDS	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.70	2.36	-0.67
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.46	3.33	-0.87
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.40	-0.11
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.17	4.84	-1.67
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	10.41	16.84	-6.43
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

AFSM vs. SCDS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current AFSM Sharpe Ratio is 1.70, which is comparable to the SCDS Sharpe Ratio of 2.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of AFSM and SCDS, 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

	AFSM	SCDS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.70	2.36	-0.67
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.41	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.44	1.11	-0.67

Drawdowns

AFSM vs. SCDS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum AFSM drawdown since its inception was -43.54%, which is greater than SCDS's maximum drawdown of -26.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for AFSM and SCDS.

Drawdown Indicators

	AFSM	SCDS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-43.54%	-26.71%	-16.83%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.56%	-8.85%	-0.71%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.07%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.27%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.47%	-0.76%	-0.71%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.48%	-5.28%	-4.20%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.90%	2.54%	+0.36%

Volatility

AFSM vs. SCDS - Volatility Comparison

First Trust Active Factor Small Cap ETF (AFSM) and JPMorgan Fundamental Data Science Small Core ETF (SCDS) have volatilities of 5.57% and 5.58%, 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.

Volatility by Period

	AFSM	SCDS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.57%	5.58%	-0.01%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.14%	12.93%	+0.21%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.89%	18.20%	-0.31%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.82%	21.20%	-0.38%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.40%	21.20%	+4.20%

AFSM vs. SCDS - Expense Ratio Comparison

AFSM has a 0.77% expense ratio, which is higher than SCDS's 0.40% expense ratio.

Dividends

AFSM vs. SCDS - Dividend Comparison

AFSM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.47%, less than SCDS's 0.92% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
AFSM First Trust Active Factor Small Cap ETF	0.47%	0.58%	0.58%	0.92%	1.28%	0.35%	0.53%	0.32%
SCDS JPMorgan Fundamental Data Science Small Core ETF	0.92%	1.15%	0.42%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both AFSM and SCDS in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.96, AFSM and SCDS 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.

Which is riskier, AFSM or SCDS?

SCDS has higher volatility (5.58%) compared to AFSM (5.57%). In terms of maximum drawdown, AFSM dropped -43.54% vs SCDS's -26.71%.

Which ETF is better, AFSM or SCDS?

On 1-year performance, SCDS leads with 42.67% vs 30.17% for AFSM. On fees, SCDS is cheaper at 0.40% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, AFSM or SCDS?

Over the 1-year period, SCDS has performed better with a 42.67% return vs 30.17%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, AFSM or SCDS?

SCDS is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.77% for AFSM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, AFSM or SCDS?

SCDS has the higher dividend yield at 0.92%, compared with 0.47% for AFSM.

What is the main difference between AFSM and SCDS?

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and JPMorgan. Their fees differ too: 0.77% for AFSM and 0.40% for SCDS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

SCDS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.36 vs 1.70), 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.