ATFV vs. RFDA

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

ATFV (Alger 35 ETF) and RFDA (RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. ATFV is passively managed, while RFDA is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, ATFV returned 12.57%/yr vs 12.90%/yr for RFDA. Their 0.68 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. ATFV charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.52%/yr for RFDA.

Performance

ATFV vs. RFDA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Alger 35 ETF (ATFV) 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, ATFV achieves a 10.01% return, which is significantly lower than RFDA's 14.14% return.

ATFV

• 1D: 2.68%
• 1M: -2.89%
• 6M: 12.26%
• YTD: 10.01%
• 1Y: 26.14%
• 3Y*: 33.90%
• 5Y*: 12.57%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 13.54%

RFDA

• 1D: 0.15%
• 1M: 1.66%
• 6M: 12.44%
• YTD: 14.14%
• 1Y: 26.35%
• 3Y*: 17.71%
• 5Y*: 12.90%
• 10Y*: 13.32%
• ALL TIME*: 13.38%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
ATFV Alger 35 ETF	$2.07M	$1.55M	$2.50M
RFDA RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF	$102.21K	$102.34K	$118.80K

ATFV vs. RFDA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
ATFV Alger 35 ETF	10.01%	38.20%	46.14%	32.75%	-35.97%	3.03%
RFDA RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF	14.14%	16.42%	20.12%	16.98%	-8.58%	12.95%

Correlation

The correlation between ATFV and RFDA is 0.52, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.52
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.62
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.68
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 4, 2021	0.68

The correlation between ATFV and RFDA shifts across timeframes, from 0.52 (1 year) to 0.68 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

ATFV vs. RFDA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ATFV	RFDA
Technology	43.2%	15.4%
Communication Services	23.6%	6.2%
Industrials	10.3%	9.3%
Healthcare	8.9%	12.2%
Consumer Cyclical	8.3%	8.1%
Utilities	4.8%	4.9%
Financial Services	1.0%	18.8%
Basic Materials	-	1.8%
Consumer Defensive	-	7.1%
Energy	-	11.1%
Real Estate	-	5.1%

Return for Risk

ATFV vs. RFDA — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

ATFV

ATFV Risk / Return Rank: 35
ATFV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 34
ATFV Sortino Ratio Rank: 35
ATFV Omega Ratio Rank: 33
ATFV Calmar Ratio Rank: 36
ATFV Martin Ratio Rank: 37

RFDA

RFDA Risk / Return Rank: 89
RFDA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
RFDA Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
RFDA Omega Ratio Rank: 86
RFDA Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
RFDA Martin Ratio Rank: 92

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

ATFV vs. RFDA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Alger 35 ETF (ATFV) 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.

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.

	ATFV	RFDA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.84	2.07	-1.23
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.32	2.85	-1.52
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.16	1.38	-0.22
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.23	4.47	-3.24
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.72	15.99	-12.27

ATFV vs. RFDA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ATFV Sharpe Ratio is 0.84, which is lower than the RFDA Sharpe Ratio of 2.07. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ATFV 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.

Drawdowns

ATFV vs. RFDA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ATFV drawdown since its inception was -45.34%, which is greater than RFDA's maximum drawdown of -34.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ATFV and RFDA.

Drawdown Indicators

	ATFV	RFDA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-45.34%	-34.60%	-10.74%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-18.29%	-5.45%	-12.84%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-29.01%	-19.35%	-9.66%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-45.34%	-19.35%	-25.99%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-34.60%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-8.11%	-0.84%	-7.27%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-17.46%	-3.70%	-13.76%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.05%	1.52%	+4.53%

Volatility

ATFV vs. RFDA - Volatility Comparison

Alger 35 ETF (ATFV) has a higher volatility of 10.70% compared to RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF (RFDA) at 2.85%. This indicates that ATFV'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

	ATFV	RFDA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.70%	2.85%	+7.85%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	21.93%	8.65%	+13.28%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	26.95%	11.76%	+15.19%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	27.36%	15.72%	+11.64%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	26.99%	16.84%	+10.15%

ATFV vs. RFDA - Expense Ratio Comparison

ATFV has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than RFDA's 0.52% expense ratio.

Dividends

ATFV vs. RFDA - Dividend Comparison

ATFV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.18%, less than RFDA's 1.77% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
ATFV Alger 35 ETF	0.18%	0.20%	0.16%	0.01%	0.06%	0.00%	0.00%	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 ATFV and RFDA in my portfolio?

ATFV and RFDA have a correlation of 0.52, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ATFV or RFDA?

ATFV has higher volatility (10.70%) compared to RFDA (2.85%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ATFV dropped -45.34% vs RFDA's -34.60%.

Which ETF is better, ATFV or RFDA?

On 5-year performance, RFDA leads with 12.90% vs 12.57% for ATFV. On fees, RFDA is cheaper at 0.52% per year. On volatility, RFDA has been the lower-risk option at 2.85%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ATFV or RFDA?

Over the 5-year period, RFDA has performed better with a 12.90% return vs 12.57%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ATFV or RFDA?

RFDA is cheaper with a 0.52% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for ATFV.

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

RFDA has the higher dividend yield at 1.77%, compared with 0.18% for ATFV.

What is the main difference between ATFV and RFDA?

They also come from different issuers: Alger and SS&C. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for ATFV and 0.52% for RFDA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RFDA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.07 vs 0.84), 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.