BFOR vs. VFMV
BFOR (ALPS Barron's 400 ETF) and VFMV (Vanguard U.S. Minimum Volatility ETF) are both Mid Cap Blend Equities funds. BFOR is passively managed, while VFMV is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, BFOR returned 9.98%/yr vs 9.82%/yr for VFMV. Their correlation of 0.80 suggests significant overlap in exposure. BFOR charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.13%/yr for VFMV.
Performance
BFOR vs. VFMV - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, BFOR achieves a 9.89% return, which is significantly higher than VFMV's 8.53% return.
BFOR
- 1D
- -0.49%
- 1M
- 2.26%
- YTD
- 9.89%
- 6M
- 10.61%
- 1Y
- 22.04%
- 3Y*
- 19.35%
- 5Y*
- 9.98%
- 10Y*
- 12.37%
VFMV
- 1D
- -0.14%
- 1M
- 1.30%
- YTD
- 8.53%
- 6M
- 8.37%
- 1Y
- 13.05%
- 3Y*
- 14.70%
- 5Y*
- 9.82%
- 10Y*
- —
BFOR vs. VFMV - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BFOR ALPS Barron's 400 ETF | 9.89% | 13.85% | 17.81% | 18.19% | -15.92% | 30.71% | 17.60% | 21.30% | -15.13% |
VFMV Vanguard U.S. Minimum Volatility ETF | 8.53% | 10.52% | 16.91% | 8.86% | -5.73% | 20.75% | -0.19% | 27.26% | -1.10% |
Correlation
The correlation between BFOR and VFMV is 0.81, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.81 |
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 Feb 16, 2018 | 0.80 |
The correlation between BFOR and VFMV has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.80 to 0.81 - a consistent structural relationship.
BFOR vs. VFMV - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
BFOR
VFMV
Financial Services
Technology
Industrials
Healthcare
Consumer Cyclical
Energy
Consumer Defensive
Communication Services
Basic Materials
-
Utilities
Real Estate
-
Financial Services
BFOR
VFMV
Technology
BFOR
VFMV
Industrials
BFOR
VFMV
Healthcare
BFOR
VFMV
Consumer Cyclical
BFOR
VFMV
Energy
BFOR
VFMV
Consumer Defensive
BFOR
VFMV
Communication Services
BFOR
VFMV
Basic Materials
BFOR
VFMV
-
Utilities
BFOR
VFMV
Real Estate
BFOR
-
VFMV
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. VFMV — Risk / Return Rank
BFOR
VFMV
BFOR vs. VFMV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ALPS Barron's 400 ETF (BFOR) and Vanguard U.S. Minimum Volatility ETF (VFMV). 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.
| BFOR | VFMV | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +0.01 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +0.06 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.26 | 1.26 | 0.00 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.46 | 2.18 | +0.28 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 9.02 | 8.57 | +0.45 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| BFOR | VFMV | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.50 | 1.49 | +0.01 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.52 | 0.84 | -0.32 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.61 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.59 | 0.69 | -0.10 |
Drawdowns
BFOR vs. VFMV - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BFOR drawdown since its inception was -41.27%, which is greater than VFMV's maximum drawdown of -33.64%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BFOR and VFMV.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BFOR | VFMV | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -41.27% | -33.64% | -7.63% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -8.98% | -6.00% | -2.98% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -21.91% | -10.35% | -11.56% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -25.93% | -15.41% | -10.52% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -41.27% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.49% | -1.02% | +0.53% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -6.43% | -3.64% | -2.79% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.45% | 1.53% | +0.92% |
Volatility
BFOR vs. VFMV - Volatility Comparison
ALPS Barron's 400 ETF (BFOR) has a higher volatility of 3.52% compared to Vanguard U.S. Minimum Volatility ETF (VFMV) at 2.09%. This indicates that BFOR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than VFMV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BFOR | VFMV | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.52% | 2.09% | +1.43% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 10.64% | 6.30% | +4.34% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 14.80% | 8.80% | +6.00% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 19.41% | 11.75% | +7.66% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 20.41% | 14.25% | +6.16% |
BFOR vs. VFMV - Expense Ratio Comparison
BFOR has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than VFMV's 0.13% expense ratio.
Dividends
BFOR vs. VFMV - Dividend Comparison
BFOR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.54%, less than VFMV's 1.93% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BFOR ALPS Barron's 400 ETF | 0.54% | 0.60% | 0.69% | 1.26% | 1.68% | 0.92% | 0.98% | 0.69% | 0.94% | 0.60% | 0.78% | 0.86% |
VFMV Vanguard U.S. Minimum Volatility ETF | 1.93% | 2.12% | 1.46% | 2.20% | 2.08% | 1.31% | 2.14% | 2.43% | 2.29% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
BFOR and VFMV have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
BFOR has higher volatility (3.52%) compared to VFMV (2.09%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BFOR dropped -41.27% vs VFMV's -33.64%.
On 5-year performance, BFOR leads with 9.98% vs 9.82% for VFMV. On fees, VFMV is cheaper at 0.13% per year. On volatility, VFMV has been the lower-risk option at 2.09%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, BFOR has performed better with a 9.98% return vs 9.82%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
VFMV is cheaper with a 0.13% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for BFOR.
VFMV has the higher dividend yield at 1.93%, compared with 0.54% for BFOR.
They also come from different issuers: SS&C and Vanguard. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for BFOR and 0.13% for VFMV.
BFOR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.50 vs 1.49), 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.
Find the right allocation for BFOR and VFMV
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