BTAL vs. RNMN
BTAL (AGF U.S. Market Neutral Anti-Beta Fund) and RNMN (RiverNorth Market Neutral ETF) are both Equity Market Neutral funds. Both are actively managed. Their -0.10 correlation means they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. BTAL charges 1.40%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for RNMN.
Performance
BTAL vs. RNMN - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
BTAL
- 1D
- -0.33%
- 1M
- 5.79%
- 6M
- -13.85%
- YTD
- -14.87%
- 1Y
- -25.47%
- 3Y*
- -8.33%
- 5Y*
- -4.14%
- 10Y*
- -4.41%
- ALL TIME*
- -3.78%
RNMN
- 1D
- 0.02%
- 1M
- —
- 6M
- —
- YTD
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- —
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $10.19M | $8.38M | $8.16M | |
| $635.40 | $23.64K | $23.64K |
BTAL vs. RNMN - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
BTAL AGF U.S. Market Neutral Anti-Beta Fund | 3.46% |
RNMN RiverNorth Market Neutral ETF | -0.06% |
Correlation
The correlation between BTAL and RNMN is -0.10, meaning they have often moved in opposite directions in the past. This relationship can weaken or reverse as market conditions change.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 9, 2026 | -0.10 |
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
BTAL vs. RNMN — Risk / Return Rank
BTAL
RNMN
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
BTAL vs. RNMN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AGF U.S. Market Neutral Anti-Beta Fund (BTAL) and RiverNorth Market Neutral ETF (RNMN). 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.
| BTAL | RNMN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.85 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.69 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.25 | — | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
BTAL vs. RNMN - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum BTAL drawdown since its inception was -52.70%, which is greater than RNMN's maximum drawdown of -0.47%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for BTAL and RNMN.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| BTAL | RNMN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -52.70% | -0.47% | -52.23% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -34.57% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -47.83% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -47.83% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -52.70% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -46.94% | -0.36% | -46.58% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -22.25% | -0.30% | -21.95% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 19.09% | — | — |
Volatility
BTAL vs. RNMN - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| BTAL | RNMN | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 7.89% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 17.97% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 23.85% | 1.86% | +21.99% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 19.39% | 1.86% | +17.53% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 17.47% | 1.86% | +15.61% |
BTAL vs. RNMN - Expense Ratio Comparison
BTAL has a 1.40% expense ratio, which is higher than RNMN's 0.90% expense ratio.
Dividends
BTAL vs. RNMN - Dividend Comparison
BTAL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.92%, while RNMN has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BTAL AGF U.S. Market Neutral Anti-Beta Fund | 2.92% | 2.49% | 3.49% | 6.14% | 1.01% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.88% | 0.39% |
RNMN RiverNorth Market Neutral ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
Frequently Asked Questions
BTAL and RNMN have a correlation of -0.10, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, RNMN is cheaper at 0.90% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
RNMN is cheaper with a 0.90% expense ratio, compared with 1.40% for BTAL.
BTAL has the higher dividend yield at 2.92%, compared with 0.00% for RNMN.
They also come from different issuers: AGF and RiverNorth. Their fees differ too: 1.40% for BTAL and 0.90% for RNMN.
Find the right allocation for BTAL and RNMN
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