BEDZ vs. RTH

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

BEDZ (AdvisorShares Hotel ETF) and RTH (VanEck Vectors Retail ETF) are both Consumer Discretionary Equities funds. BEDZ is actively managed, while RTH is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, BEDZ returned 8.91%/yr vs 9.06%/yr for RTH. A 0.57 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. BEDZ charges 0.99%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for RTH.

Performance

BEDZ vs. RTH - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AdvisorShares Hotel ETF (BEDZ) and VanEck Vectors Retail ETF (RTH). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BEDZ achieves a 10.82% return, which is significantly higher than RTH's 2.29% return.

BEDZ

• 1D: 0.15%
• 1M: 9.56%
• YTD: 10.82%
• 6M: 8.96%
• 1Y: 24.44%
• 3Y*: 16.30%
• 5Y*: 8.91%
• 10Y*: —

RTH

• 1D: 0.73%
• 1M: -3.21%
• YTD: 2.29%
• 6M: 1.90%
• 1Y: 9.66%
• 3Y*: 15.15%
• 5Y*: 9.06%
• 10Y*: 14.17%

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

BEDZ vs. RTH - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
BEDZ AdvisorShares Hotel ETF	10.82%	3.46%	18.31%	23.88%	-13.40%	7.95%
RTH VanEck Vectors Retail ETF	2.29%	12.36%	20.02%	20.07%	-17.67%	14.18%

Correlation

The correlation between BEDZ and RTH is 0.51, 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	0.51
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.55
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.57
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 21, 2021	0.57

The correlation between BEDZ and RTH has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.51 to 0.57 - a consistent structural relationship.

BEDZ vs. RTH - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BEDZ	RTH
Consumer Cyclical	52.0%	57.2%
Real Estate	38.2%	-
Industrials	3.9%	2.6%
Communication Services	1.5%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	26.8%
Energy	-	-
Financial Services	-	-
Healthcare	-	13.4%
Technology	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

BEDZ vs. RTH — Risk / Return Rank

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

BEDZ

BEDZ Risk / Return Rank: 37
BEDZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 36
BEDZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 38
BEDZ Omega Ratio Rank: 33
BEDZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 43
BEDZ Martin Ratio Rank: 34

RTH

RTH Risk / Return Rank: 25
RTH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 23
RTH Sortino Ratio Rank: 23
RTH Omega Ratio Rank: 22
RTH Calmar Ratio Rank: 26
RTH Martin Ratio Rank: 29

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.

BEDZ vs. RTH - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AdvisorShares Hotel ETF (BEDZ) and VanEck Vectors Retail ETF (RTH). 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.

	BEDZ	RTH	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.20	0.78	+0.42
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.86	1.22	+0.64
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.21	1.14	+0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.04	1.24	+0.80
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.78	3.93	+0.84

BEDZ vs. RTH - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BEDZ Sharpe Ratio is 1.20, which is higher than the RTH Sharpe Ratio of 0.78. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BEDZ and RTH, 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

BEDZ vs. RTH - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BEDZ drawdown since its inception was -29.70%, smaller than the maximum RTH drawdown of -42.32%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BEDZ and RTH.

Drawdown Indicators

	BEDZ	RTH	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-29.70%	-42.32%	+12.62%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.06%	-7.83%	-4.23%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-28.31%	-13.80%	-14.51%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-29.70%	-25.00%	-4.70%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-25.00%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.92%	-5.46%	+4.54%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.00%	-7.33%	-0.67%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.13%	2.46%	+2.67%

Volatility

BEDZ vs. RTH - Volatility Comparison

AdvisorShares Hotel ETF (BEDZ) has a higher volatility of 4.98% compared to VanEck Vectors Retail ETF (RTH) at 4.59%. This indicates that BEDZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RTH based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	BEDZ	RTH	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.98%	4.59%	+0.39%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.25%	9.71%	+5.54%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	20.39%	12.40%	+7.99%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	24.89%	16.85%	+8.04%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.78%	17.57%	+7.21%

BEDZ vs. RTH - Expense Ratio Comparison

BEDZ has a 0.99% expense ratio, which is higher than RTH's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

BEDZ vs. RTH - Dividend Comparison

BEDZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.08%, more than RTH's 0.95% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BEDZ AdvisorShares Hotel ETF	2.08%	2.31%	0.00%	1.67%	0.21%	0.36%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RTH VanEck Vectors Retail ETF	0.95%	0.97%	0.77%	1.07%	1.16%	0.78%	0.64%	0.91%	1.05%	1.56%	1.84%	2.25%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both BEDZ and RTH in my portfolio?

BEDZ and RTH have a correlation of 0.51, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BEDZ or RTH?

BEDZ has higher volatility (4.98%) compared to RTH (4.59%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BEDZ dropped -29.70% vs RTH's -42.32%.

Which ETF is better, BEDZ or RTH?

On 5-year performance, RTH leads with 9.06% vs 8.91% for BEDZ. On fees, RTH is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, RTH has been the lower-risk option at 4.59%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BEDZ or RTH?

Over the 5-year period, RTH has performed better with a 9.06% return vs 8.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BEDZ or RTH?

RTH is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.99% for BEDZ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, BEDZ or RTH?

BEDZ has the higher dividend yield at 2.08%, compared with 0.95% for RTH.

What is the main difference between BEDZ and RTH?

They also come from different issuers: AdvisorShares and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.99% for BEDZ and 0.35% for RTH.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BEDZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.20 vs 0.78), 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.