CAFG vs. RSMC

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

CAFG (Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF) and RSMC (Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF) are both Small Cap Growth Equities funds. CAFG is passively managed, while RSMC is actively managed. Over the past year, CAFG returned 36.59% vs 15.46% for RSMC. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CAFG charges 0.59%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for RSMC.

Performance

CAFG vs. RSMC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (CAFG) and Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF (RSMC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CAFG achieves a 28.41% return, which is significantly higher than RSMC's 14.42% return.

CAFG

• 1D: 0.27%
• 1M: 3.32%
• YTD: 28.41%
• 6M: 25.69%
• 1Y: 36.59%
• 3Y*: 15.20%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RSMC

• 1D: 0.12%
• 1M: 3.78%
• YTD: 14.42%
• 6M: 11.59%
• 1Y: 15.46%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

CAFG vs. RSMC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
CAFG Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF	28.41%	0.17%	1.60%
RSMC Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF	14.42%	-1.02%	0.67%

Correlation

The correlation between CAFG and RSMC is 0.86, 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	0.86
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 11, 2024	0.85

The correlation between CAFG and RSMC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

CAFG vs. RSMC — Risk / Return Rank

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

CAFG

CAFG Risk / Return Rank: 71
CAFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
CAFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
CAFG Omega Ratio Rank: 60
CAFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
CAFG Martin Ratio Rank: 79

RSMC

RSMC Risk / Return Rank: 28
RSMC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 26
RSMC Sortino Ratio Rank: 26
RSMC Omega Ratio Rank: 24
RSMC Calmar Ratio Rank: 31
RSMC Martin Ratio Rank: 32

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.

CAFG vs. RSMC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (CAFG) and Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF (RSMC). 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.

	CAFG	RSMC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.09	0.90	+1.19
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.94	1.38	+1.56
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.35	1.16	+0.19
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.52	1.48	+3.04
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	14.88	4.43	+10.45

CAFG vs. RSMC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CAFG Sharpe Ratio is 2.09, which is higher than the RSMC Sharpe Ratio of 0.90. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CAFG and RSMC, 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

CAFG vs. RSMC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CAFG drawdown since its inception was -23.66%, which is greater than RSMC's maximum drawdown of -22.33%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CAFG and RSMC.

Drawdown Indicators

	CAFG	RSMC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.66%	-22.33%	-1.33%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.13%	-10.49%	+2.36%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-23.66%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.16%	0.00%	-0.16%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.45%	-5.13%	-0.32%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.46%	3.49%	-1.03%

Volatility

CAFG vs. RSMC - Volatility Comparison

Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (CAFG) has a higher volatility of 5.05% compared to Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF (RSMC) at 4.03%. This indicates that CAFG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RSMC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CAFG	RSMC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.05%	4.03%	+1.02%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.15%	12.67%	+0.48%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.64%	17.31%	+0.33%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.55%	20.27%	-0.72%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.55%	20.27%	-0.72%

CAFG vs. RSMC - Expense Ratio Comparison

CAFG has a 0.59% expense ratio, which is lower than RSMC's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

CAFG vs. RSMC - Dividend Comparison

CAFG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.31%, while RSMC has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
CAFG Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF	0.31%	0.35%	0.36%	0.39%
RSMC Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CAFG and RSMC in my portfolio?

CAFG and RSMC have a correlation of 0.86, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CAFG or RSMC?

CAFG has higher volatility (5.05%) compared to RSMC (4.03%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CAFG dropped -23.66% vs RSMC's -22.33%.

Which ETF is better, CAFG or RSMC?

On 1-year performance, CAFG leads with 36.59% vs 15.46% for RSMC. On fees, CAFG is cheaper at 0.59% per year. On volatility, RSMC has been the lower-risk option at 4.03%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CAFG or RSMC?

Over the 1-year period, CAFG has performed better with a 36.59% return vs 15.46%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CAFG or RSMC?

CAFG is cheaper with a 0.59% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for RSMC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CAFG or RSMC?

CAFG has the higher dividend yield at 0.31%, compared with 0.00% for RSMC.

What is the main difference between CAFG and RSMC?

They also come from different issuers: Pacer and Rockefeller. Their fees differ too: 0.59% for CAFG and 0.75% for RSMC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CAFG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.09 vs 0.90), 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.