CLCV vs. PRF

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CLCV (Crossmark Large Cap Value ETF) and PRF (Invesco RAFI US 1000 ETF) are both Large Cap Value Equities funds. CLCV is actively managed, while PRF is passively managed. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CLCV charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.34%/yr for PRF.

Performance

CLCV vs. PRF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Crossmark Large Cap Value ETF (CLCV) and Invesco RAFI US 1000 ETF (PRF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CLCV achieves a 13.65% return, which is significantly lower than PRF's 14.79% return.

CLCV

• 1D: -0.54%
• 1M: 8.29%
• YTD: 13.65%
• 6M: 16.11%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

PRF

• 1D: -0.20%
• 1M: 4.19%
• YTD: 14.79%
• 6M: 15.01%
• 1Y: 32.80%
• 3Y*: 21.40%
• 5Y*: 12.43%
• 10Y*: 13.67%

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

CLCV vs. PRF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
CLCV Crossmark Large Cap Value ETF	13.65%	4.88%
PRF Invesco RAFI US 1000 ETF	14.79%	9.04%

Correlation

The correlation between CLCV and PRF 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 24, 2025	0.86

Return for Risk

CLCV vs. PRF — Risk / Return Rank

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

PRF

PRF Risk / Return Rank: 89
PRF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
PRF Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
PRF Omega Ratio Rank: 88
PRF Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
PRF 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.

CLCV vs. PRF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Crossmark Large Cap Value ETF (CLCV) and Invesco RAFI US 1000 ETF (PRF). 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.

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CLCV	PRF	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	3.10	—
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.82	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.78	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.88	0.48	+1.41

Drawdowns

CLCV vs. PRF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CLCV drawdown since its inception was -6.94%, smaller than the maximum PRF drawdown of -60.35%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CLCV and PRF.

Drawdown Indicators

	CLCV	PRF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-6.94%	-60.35%	+53.41%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-6.59%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-15.82%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-19.72%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-38.16%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.54%	-0.20%	-0.34%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.46%	-6.93%	+5.47%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	1.59%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	CLCV	PRF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	2.64%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	7.74%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.03%	10.63%	+1.40%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.03%	15.18%	-3.15%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.03%	17.67%	-5.64%

CLCV vs. PRF - Expense Ratio Comparison

CLCV has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than PRF's 0.34% expense ratio.

Dividends

CLCV vs. PRF - Dividend Comparison

CLCV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.35%, less than PRF's 1.38% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CLCV Crossmark Large Cap Value ETF	0.35%	0.40%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
PRF Invesco RAFI US 1000 ETF	1.38%	1.59%	1.78%	1.84%	2.01%	1.58%	1.97%	1.99%	2.25%	1.58%	2.17%	2.25%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CLCV and PRF in my portfolio?

CLCV and PRF 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 ETF is better, CLCV or PRF?

On fees, PRF is cheaper at 0.34% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, CLCV or PRF?

PRF is cheaper with a 0.34% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for CLCV.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CLCV or PRF?

PRF has the higher dividend yield at 1.38%, compared with 0.35% for CLCV.

What is the main difference between CLCV and PRF?

They also come from different issuers: Crossmark and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for CLCV and 0.34% for PRF.