CAML vs. RFDA

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CAML (Congress 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, CAML returned 15.24% vs 29.49% for RFDA. A 0.79 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CAML charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.52%/yr for RFDA.

Performance

CAML vs. RFDA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Congress Large Cap Growth ETF (CAML) 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, CAML achieves a 5.82% return, which is significantly lower than RFDA's 11.40% return.

CAML

• 1D: -0.86%
• 1M: 4.12%
• YTD: 5.82%
• 6M: 4.18%
• 1Y: 15.24%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RFDA

• 1D: -0.92%
• 1M: 4.27%
• YTD: 11.40%
• 6M: 12.25%
• 1Y: 29.49%
• 3Y*: 19.19%
• 5Y*: 13.17%
• 10Y*: —

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

CAML vs. RFDA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
CAML Congress Large Cap Growth ETF	5.82%	12.43%	23.24%	10.13%
RFDA RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF	11.40%	16.42%	20.12%	7.78%

Correlation

The correlation between CAML and RFDA is 0.75, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.75
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 23, 2023	0.79

The correlation between CAML and RFDA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.75 to 0.79 - a consistent structural relationship.

CAML vs. RFDA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CAML	RFDA
Technology	44.2%	19.9%
Consumer Cyclical	9.9%	7.0%
Communication Services	9.5%	8.8%
Financial Services	8.6%	14.7%
Industrials	8.2%	8.9%
Healthcare	6.2%	8.8%
Utilities	3.4%	5.0%
Real Estate	2.4%	5.0%
Consumer Defensive	2.3%	7.6%
Energy	2.2%	12.5%
Basic Materials	2.0%	1.8%

Return for Risk

CAML vs. RFDA — Risk / Return Rank

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

CAML

CAML Risk / Return Rank: 27
CAML Sharpe Ratio Rank: 29
CAML Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
CAML Omega Ratio Rank: 28
CAML Calmar Ratio Rank: 22
CAML Martin Ratio Rank: 25

RFDA

RFDA Risk / Return Rank: 83
RFDA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
RFDA Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
RFDA Omega Ratio Rank: 79
RFDA Calmar Ratio Rank: 90
RFDA Martin Ratio Rank: 89

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.

CAML vs. RFDA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

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

	CAML	RFDA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.05	2.55	-1.50
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.54	3.52	-1.97
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.19	1.47	-0.29
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.03	5.44	-4.41
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.39	19.87	-16.48
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CAML vs. RFDA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CAML Sharpe Ratio is 1.05, which is lower than the RFDA Sharpe Ratio of 2.55. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CAML 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CAML	RFDA	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.05	2.55	-1.50
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.84	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.07	0.79	+0.27

Drawdowns

CAML vs. RFDA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CAML drawdown since its inception was -21.06%, smaller than the maximum RFDA drawdown of -34.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CAML and RFDA.

Drawdown Indicators

	CAML	RFDA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-21.06%	-34.60%	+13.54%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.86%	-5.45%	-9.41%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-19.35%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-19.35%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.86%	-0.92%	+0.06%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.08%	-3.74%	+0.66%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.50%	1.49%	+3.01%

Volatility

CAML vs. RFDA - Volatility Comparison

Congress Large Cap Growth ETF (CAML) has a higher volatility of 3.65% compared to RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF (RFDA) at 2.66%. This indicates that CAML'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

	CAML	RFDA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.65%	2.66%	+0.99%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.35%	8.47%	+2.88%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.63%	11.64%	+2.99%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.76%	15.73%	+2.03%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.76%	16.85%	+0.91%

CAML vs. RFDA - Expense Ratio Comparison

CAML has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than RFDA's 0.52% expense ratio.

Dividends

CAML vs. RFDA - Dividend Comparison

CAML has not paid dividends to shareholders, while RFDA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.77%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
CAML Congress Large Cap Growth ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.06%	0.15%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RFDA RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF	1.77%	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 CAML and RFDA in my portfolio?

CAML and RFDA have a correlation of 0.75, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CAML or RFDA?

CAML has higher volatility (3.65%) compared to RFDA (2.66%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CAML dropped -21.06% vs RFDA's -34.60%.

Which ETF is better, CAML or RFDA?

On 1-year performance, RFDA leads with 29.49% vs 15.24% for CAML. On fees, RFDA is cheaper at 0.52% per year. On volatility, RFDA has been the lower-risk option at 2.66%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CAML or RFDA?

Over the 1-year period, RFDA has performed better with a 29.49% return vs 15.24%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CAML or RFDA?

RFDA is cheaper with a 0.52% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for CAML.

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

RFDA has the higher dividend yield at 1.77%, compared with 0.00% for CAML.

What is the main difference between CAML and RFDA?

They also come from different issuers: Congress and SS&C. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for CAML and 0.52% for RFDA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RFDA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.55 vs 1.05), 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.