BLGR vs. RFDA

Last updated Aug 6, 2026

BLGR (Bluemonte Large Cap Growth ETF) and RFDA (RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, BLGR returned 21.92% vs 26.29% for RFDA. Their 0.67 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. BLGR charges 0.24%/yr vs 0.52%/yr for RFDA.

Performance

BLGR vs. RFDA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Bluemonte Large Cap Growth ETF (BLGR) 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, BLGR achieves a 11.68% return, which is significantly lower than RFDA's 15.61% return.

BLGR

• 1D: -0.18%
• 1M: 2.62%
• 6M: 15.20%
• YTD: 11.68%
• 1Y: 21.92%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 26.66%

RFDA

• 1D: -0.33%
• 1M: 2.51%
• 6M: 13.75%
• YTD: 15.61%
• 1Y: 26.29%
• 3Y*: 19.22%
• 5Y*: 12.97%
• 10Y*: 13.40%
• ALL TIME*: 13.51%

*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)
BLGR Bluemonte Large Cap Growth ETF	$611.51K	$593.60K	$1.01M
RFDA RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF	$163.00K	$125.22K	$115.28K

BLGR vs. RFDA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
BLGR Bluemonte Large Cap Growth ETF	11.68%	16.59%
RFDA RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF	15.61%	15.18%

Correlation

The correlation between BLGR and RFDA is 0.67, 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.	0.67
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 23, 2025	0.67

The correlation between BLGR and RFDA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.67 to 0.67 - a consistent structural relationship.

BLGR vs. RFDA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	BLGR	RFDA
Technology	48.8%	15.4%
Communication Services	14.3%	6.2%
Consumer Cyclical	9.9%	8.1%
Financial Services	8.3%	18.8%
Healthcare	7.6%	12.2%
Industrials	6.7%	9.3%
Consumer Defensive	1.8%	7.1%
Basic Materials	0.8%	1.8%
Real Estate	0.7%	5.1%
Utilities	0.6%	4.9%
Energy	0.5%	11.1%

Return for Risk

BLGR vs. RFDA — Risk / Return Rank

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

BLGR

BLGR Risk / Return Rank: 43
BLGR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 46
BLGR Sortino Ratio Rank: 44
BLGR Omega Ratio Rank: 43
BLGR Calmar Ratio Rank: 39
BLGR Martin Ratio Rank: 43

RFDA

RFDA Risk / Return Rank: 89
RFDA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
RFDA Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
RFDA Omega Ratio Rank: 87
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.

BLGR vs. RFDA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Bluemonte Large Cap Growth ETF (BLGR) 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.

	BLGR	RFDA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.31	2.28	-0.97
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.86	3.12	-1.26
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.42	-0.19
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.56	4.85	-3.28
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.42	17.35	-11.93

BLGR vs. RFDA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current BLGR Sharpe Ratio is 1.31, which is lower than the RFDA Sharpe Ratio of 2.28. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of BLGR 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

BLGR vs. RFDA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum BLGR drawdown since its inception was -14.08%, smaller than the maximum RFDA drawdown of -34.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BLGR and RFDA.

Drawdown Indicators

	BLGR	RFDA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.08%	-34.60%	+20.52%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.08%	-5.45%	-8.63%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-19.35%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-19.35%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-34.60%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.18%	-0.33%	+0.15%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.65%	-3.69%	+1.04%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.06%	1.52%	+2.54%

Volatility

BLGR vs. RFDA - Volatility Comparison

Bluemonte Large Cap Growth ETF (BLGR) has a higher volatility of 5.70% compared to RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF (RFDA) at 2.95%. This indicates that BLGR'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

	BLGR	RFDA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.70%	2.95%	+2.75%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.50%	8.69%	+4.81%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.80%	11.60%	+5.20%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.31%	15.73%	+0.58%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.31%	16.84%	-0.53%

BLGR vs. RFDA - Expense Ratio Comparison

BLGR has a 0.24% expense ratio, which is lower than RFDA's 0.52% expense ratio.

Dividends

BLGR vs. RFDA - Dividend Comparison

BLGR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.32%, less than RFDA's 1.75% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
BLGR Bluemonte Large Cap Growth ETF	0.32%	0.17%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RFDA RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF	1.75%	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 BLGR and RFDA in my portfolio?

BLGR and RFDA have a correlation of 0.67, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, BLGR or RFDA?

BLGR has higher volatility (5.70%) compared to RFDA (2.95%). In terms of maximum drawdown, BLGR dropped -14.08% vs RFDA's -34.60%.

Which ETF is better, BLGR or RFDA?

On 1-year performance, RFDA leads with 26.29% vs 21.92% for BLGR. On fees, BLGR is cheaper at 0.24% per year. On volatility, RFDA has been the lower-risk option at 2.95%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, BLGR or RFDA?

Over the 1-year period, RFDA has performed better with a 26.29% return vs 21.92%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, BLGR or RFDA?

BLGR is cheaper with a 0.24% expense ratio, compared with 0.52% for RFDA.

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

RFDA has the higher dividend yield at 1.75%, compared with 0.32% for BLGR.

What is the main difference between BLGR and RFDA?

They also come from different issuers: Bluemonte and SS&C. Their fees differ too: 0.24% for BLGR and 0.52% for RFDA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RFDA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.28 vs 1.31), 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.