PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
BFOR vs. MOAT
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

BFOR vs. MOAT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ALPS Barron's 400 ETF (BFOR) and VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF (MOAT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, BFOR achieves a 15.05% return, which is significantly higher than MOAT's 4.36% return. Over the past 10 years, BFOR has underperformed MOAT with an annualized return of 12.64%, while MOAT has yielded a comparatively higher 13.65% annualized return.


BFOR

1D
0.20%
1M
-0.61%
6M
11.25%
YTD
15.05%
1Y
23.90%
3Y*
17.17%
5Y*
10.70%
10Y*
12.64%
ALL TIME*
11.54%

MOAT

1D
0.23%
1M
1.68%
6M
3.18%
YTD
4.36%
1Y
14.29%
3Y*
10.60%
5Y*
8.70%
10Y*
13.65%
ALL TIME*
13.81%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison


PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)
$667.88K$621.15K$445.26K
$65.74M$67.48M$82.03M

BFOR vs. MOAT - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
BFOR
ALPS Barron's 400 ETF
15.05%13.85%17.81%18.19%-15.92%30.71%17.60%21.30%-13.86%19.37%
MOAT
VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF
4.36%13.20%10.73%31.89%-13.66%24.12%14.84%34.79%-1.28%23.18%

Correlation

The correlation between BFOR and MOAT is 0.74, 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.

0.74

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.79

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.83

Correlation (10Y)
Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.

0.84

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 4, 2013

0.83

The correlation between BFOR and MOAT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.74 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.

BFOR vs. MOAT - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
BFOR
MOAT

Financial Services

21.8%
9.2%

Technology

20.9%
30.8%

Industrials

16.4%
9.5%

Healthcare

11.9%
18.1%

Consumer Cyclical

10.9%
11.1%

Energy

6.4%

-

Consumer Defensive

4.0%
18.2%

Communication Services

3.5%
2.4%

Basic Materials

2.4%

-

Utilities

1.8%

-

Real Estate

-

0.7%

Financial Services

BFOR
21.8%
MOAT
9.2%

Technology

BFOR
20.9%
MOAT
30.8%

Industrials

BFOR
16.4%
MOAT
9.5%

Healthcare

BFOR
11.9%
MOAT
18.1%

Consumer Cyclical

BFOR
10.9%
MOAT
11.1%

Energy

BFOR
6.4%
MOAT

-

Consumer Defensive

BFOR
4.0%
MOAT
18.2%

Communication Services

BFOR
3.5%
MOAT
2.4%

Basic Materials

BFOR
2.4%
MOAT

-

Utilities

BFOR
1.8%
MOAT

-

Real Estate

BFOR

-

MOAT
0.7%

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

BFOR vs. MOAT — Risk / Return Rank

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

BFOR
BFOR Risk / Return Rank: 6868
Overall Rank
BFOR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6565
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BFOR Sortino Ratio Rank: 6969
Sortino Ratio Rank
BFOR Omega Ratio Rank: 6161
Omega Ratio Rank
BFOR Calmar Ratio Rank: 7171
Calmar Ratio Rank
BFOR Martin Ratio Rank: 7373
Martin Ratio Rank

MOAT
MOAT Risk / Return Rank: 3535
Overall Rank
MOAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3838
Sharpe Ratio Rank
MOAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 3838
Sortino Ratio Rank
MOAT Omega Ratio Rank: 3535
Omega Ratio Rank
MOAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 3232
Calmar Ratio Rank
MOAT Martin Ratio Rank: 3333
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

BFOR vs. MOAT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ALPS Barron's 400 ETF (BFOR) and VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF (MOAT). 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.


BFORMOATDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.55

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.80

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.26

1.16

+0.10

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.48

1.06

+1.41

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

9.03

3.17

+5.86

BFOR vs. MOAT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BFOR Sharpe Ratio is 1.50, which is higher than the MOAT Sharpe Ratio of 0.95. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BFOR and MOAT, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

BFOR vs. MOAT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BFOR drawdown since its inception was -41.27%, which is greater than MOAT's maximum drawdown of -33.31%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BFOR and MOAT.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


BFORMOATDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-41.27%

-33.31%

-7.96%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.98%

-12.43%

+3.45%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-21.91%

-21.44%

-0.47%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-25.93%

-23.96%

-1.97%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-41.27%

-33.31%

-7.96%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.92%

-0.06%

-0.86%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.36%

-3.82%

-2.54%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.46%

4.16%

-1.70%

Volatility

BFOR vs. MOAT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ALPS Barron's 400 ETF (BFOR) is 3.05%, while VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF (MOAT) has a volatility of 4.00%. This indicates that BFOR experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MOAT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


BFORMOATDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.05%

4.00%

-0.95%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.73%

10.47%

+0.26%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

14.84%

14.04%

+0.80%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

19.40%

18.29%

+1.11%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

20.34%

18.62%

+1.72%

BFOR vs. MOAT - Expense Ratio Comparison

BFOR has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than MOAT's 0.47% expense ratio.


Dividends

BFOR vs. MOAT - Dividend Comparison

BFOR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.52%, less than MOAT's 1.30% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
BFOR
ALPS Barron's 400 ETF
0.52%0.60%0.69%1.26%1.68%0.92%0.98%0.69%0.94%0.60%0.78%0.86%
MOAT
VanEck Morningstar Wide Moat ETF
1.30%1.36%1.37%0.86%1.25%1.08%1.46%1.31%1.79%1.07%1.17%2.13%

Frequently Asked Questions


BFOR and MOAT have a correlation of 0.74, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

MOAT has higher volatility (4.00%) compared to BFOR (3.05%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BFOR dropped -41.27% vs MOAT's -33.31%.

On 10-year performance, MOAT leads with 13.65% vs 12.64% for BFOR. On fees, MOAT is cheaper at 0.47% per year. On volatility, BFOR has been the lower-risk option at 3.05%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, MOAT has performed better with a 13.65% return vs 12.64%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

MOAT is cheaper with a 0.47% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for BFOR.

MOAT has the higher dividend yield at 1.30%, compared with 0.52% for BFOR.

BFOR is categorized as Mid Cap Blend Equities, while MOAT is Large Cap Blend Equities. BFOR tracks Barron's 400 Index, while MOAT tracks Morningstar Wide Moat Focus Index. They also come from different issuers: SS&C and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for BFOR and 0.47% for MOAT.

BFOR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.50 vs 0.95), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for BFOR and MOAT

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