ANEW vs. RFDA

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ANEW (ProShares MSCI Transformational Changes ETF) and RFDA (RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. ANEW is passively managed, while RFDA is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, ANEW returned 3.83%/yr vs 13.17%/yr for RFDA. A 0.79 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ANEW charges 0.45%/yr vs 0.52%/yr for RFDA.

Performance

ANEW vs. RFDA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares MSCI Transformational Changes ETF (ANEW) and RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF (RFDA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ANEW achieves a 1.92% return, which is significantly lower than RFDA's 11.40% return.

ANEW

• 1D: -0.48%
• 1M: 4.91%
• YTD: 1.92%
• 6M: 0.88%
• 1Y: 6.05%
• 3Y*: 13.69%
• 5Y*: 3.83%
• 10Y*: —

RFDA

• 1D: -0.92%
• 1M: 4.27%
• YTD: 11.40%
• 6M: 12.25%
• 1Y: 29.49%
• 3Y*: 19.19%
• 5Y*: 13.17%
• 10Y*: —

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

ANEW vs. RFDA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
ANEW ProShares MSCI Transformational Changes ETF	1.92%	12.01%	19.37%	22.81%	-29.62%	6.95%	5.77%
RFDA RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF	11.40%	16.42%	20.12%	16.98%	-8.58%	25.94%	6.45%

Correlation

The correlation between ANEW and RFDA is 0.69, 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	0.69
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.80
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.80
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 19, 2020	0.79

The correlation between ANEW and RFDA shifts across timeframes, from 0.69 (1 year) to 0.80 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

ANEW vs. RFDA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ANEW	RFDA
Healthcare	23.3%	8.8%
Technology	22.6%	19.9%
Communication Services	16.0%	8.8%
Basic Materials	11.6%	1.8%
Consumer Cyclical	11.2%	7.0%
Industrials	7.0%	8.9%
Consumer Defensive	4.6%	7.6%
Financial Services	3.6%	14.7%
Real Estate	0.2%	5.0%
Energy	-	12.5%
Utilities	-	5.0%

Return for Risk

ANEW vs. RFDA — Risk / Return Rank

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

ANEW

ANEW Risk / Return Rank: 15
ANEW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 16
ANEW Sortino Ratio Rank: 15
ANEW Omega Ratio Rank: 15
ANEW Calmar Ratio Rank: 14
ANEW Martin Ratio Rank: 14

RFDA

RFDA Risk / Return Rank: 83
RFDA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
RFDA Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
RFDA Omega Ratio Rank: 79
RFDA Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
RFDA Martin Ratio Rank: 89

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.

ANEW vs. RFDA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares MSCI Transformational Changes ETF (ANEW) and RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF (RFDA). 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.

	ANEW	RFDA	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	0.46	2.55	-2.09
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	0.73	3.52	-2.79
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.09	1.47	-0.38
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.38	5.44	-5.06
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	1.08	19.87	-18.79
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ANEW vs. RFDA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ANEW Sharpe Ratio is 0.46, which is lower than the RFDA Sharpe Ratio of 2.55. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ANEW and RFDA, 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

	ANEW	RFDA	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.46	2.55	-2.09
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.20	0.84	-0.64
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.28	0.79	-0.51

Drawdowns

ANEW vs. RFDA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ANEW drawdown since its inception was -39.87%, which is greater than RFDA's maximum drawdown of -34.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ANEW and RFDA.

Drawdown Indicators

	ANEW	RFDA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-39.87%	-34.60%	-5.27%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.12%	-5.45%	-10.67%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.26%	-19.35%	-0.91%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-39.87%	-19.35%	-20.52%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-3.05%	-0.92%	-2.13%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-13.37%	-3.74%	-9.63%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.62%	1.49%	+4.13%

Volatility

ANEW vs. RFDA - Volatility Comparison

ProShares MSCI Transformational Changes ETF (ANEW) has a higher volatility of 3.09% compared to RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF (RFDA) at 2.66%. This indicates that ANEW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RFDA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ANEW	RFDA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.09%	2.66%	+0.43%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.83%	8.47%	+1.36%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.19%	11.64%	+1.55%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.81%	15.73%	+3.08%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.80%	16.85%	+1.95%

ANEW vs. RFDA - Expense Ratio Comparison

ANEW has a 0.45% expense ratio, which is lower than RFDA's 0.52% expense ratio.

Dividends

ANEW vs. RFDA - Dividend Comparison

ANEW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.61%, less than RFDA's 1.77% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
ANEW ProShares MSCI Transformational Changes ETF	0.61%	0.54%	1.08%	0.87%	1.05%	0.24%	0.04%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RFDA RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF	1.77%	1.89%	2.23%	2.68%	3.57%	1.44%	1.62%	1.87%	2.44%	1.90%	0.98%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ANEW and RFDA in my portfolio?

ANEW and RFDA have a correlation of 0.69, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ANEW or RFDA?

ANEW has higher volatility (3.09%) compared to RFDA (2.66%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ANEW dropped -39.87% vs RFDA's -34.60%.

Which ETF is better, ANEW or RFDA?

On 5-year performance, RFDA leads with 13.17% vs 3.83% for ANEW. On fees, ANEW is cheaper at 0.45% per year. On volatility, RFDA has been the lower-risk option at 2.66%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ANEW or RFDA?

Over the 5-year period, RFDA has performed better with a 13.17% return vs 3.83%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ANEW or RFDA?

ANEW is cheaper with a 0.45% expense ratio, compared with 0.52% for RFDA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ANEW or RFDA?

RFDA has the higher dividend yield at 1.77%, compared with 0.61% for ANEW.

What is the main difference between ANEW and RFDA?

They also come from different issuers: ProShares and SS&C. Their fees differ too: 0.45% for ANEW and 0.52% for RFDA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RFDA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.55 vs 0.46), 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.