CWS vs. RFDA

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

CWS (AdvisorShares Focused Equity ETF) and RFDA (RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, CWS returned 8.23%/yr vs 12.99%/yr for RFDA. A 0.73 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CWS charges 0.77%/yr vs 0.52%/yr for RFDA.

Performance

CWS vs. RFDA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in AdvisorShares Focused Equity ETF (CWS) 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, CWS achieves a 0.21% return, which is significantly lower than RFDA's 13.50% return.

CWS

• 1D: 1.68%
• 1M: 0.12%
• 6M: -4.21%
• YTD: 0.21%
• 1Y: -0.61%
• 3Y*: 8.35%
• 5Y*: 8.23%
• 10Y*: —

RFDA

• 1D: 0.54%
• 1M: 1.41%
• 6M: 12.36%
• YTD: 13.50%
• 1Y: 23.75%
• 3Y*: 18.11%
• 5Y*: 12.99%
• 10Y*: 13.47%

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

CWS vs. RFDA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CWS AdvisorShares Focused Equity ETF	0.21%	6.43%	9.82%	25.06%	-10.42%	22.20%	17.12%	30.97%	-6.46%	20.92%
RFDA RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF	13.50%	16.42%	20.12%	16.98%	-8.58%	25.94%	11.26%	27.15%	-9.27%	19.86%

Correlation

The correlation between CWS and RFDA is 0.60, 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	0.60
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.69
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.74
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 21, 2016	0.73

The correlation between CWS and RFDA shifts across timeframes, from 0.60 (1 year) to 0.74 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

CWS vs. RFDA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CWS	RFDA
Healthcare	24.2%	9.7%
Industrials	23.8%	8.6%
Technology	19.5%	21.1%
Consumer Cyclical	13.5%	7.4%
Financial Services	10.9%	14.4%
Consumer Defensive	4.3%	7.0%
Utilities	3.8%	4.8%
Basic Materials	-	1.9%
Communication Services	-	8.3%
Energy	-	11.7%
Real Estate	-	4.9%

Return for Risk

CWS vs. RFDA — Risk / Return Rank

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

CWS

CWS Risk / Return Rank: 9
CWS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9
CWS Sortino Ratio Rank: 8
CWS Omega Ratio Rank: 8
CWS Calmar Ratio Rank: 9
CWS Martin Ratio Rank: 9

RFDA

RFDA Risk / Return Rank: 84
RFDA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
RFDA Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
RFDA Omega Ratio Rank: 81
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.

CWS vs. RFDA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AdvisorShares Focused Equity ETF (CWS) 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.

	CWS	RFDA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.05	2.06	-2.10
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.03	2.85	-2.82
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.00	1.38	-0.38
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.05	4.38	-4.43
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.13	15.52	-15.65

CWS vs. RFDA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CWS Sharpe Ratio is -0.05, which is lower than the RFDA Sharpe Ratio of 2.06. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CWS 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

CWS vs. RFDA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CWS drawdown since its inception was -33.82%, roughly equal to the maximum RFDA drawdown of -34.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CWS and RFDA.

Drawdown Indicators

	CWS	RFDA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.82%	-34.60%	+0.78%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.92%	-5.45%	-6.47%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-16.56%	-19.35%	+2.79%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.87%	-19.35%	-5.52%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-34.60%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.30%	-0.12%	-4.18%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.55%	-3.71%	-0.84%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.83%	1.53%	+3.30%

Volatility

CWS vs. RFDA - Volatility Comparison

AdvisorShares Focused Equity ETF (CWS) has a higher volatility of 3.92% compared to RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF (RFDA) at 2.36%. This indicates that CWS'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

	CWS	RFDA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.92%	2.36%	+1.56%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.49%	8.80%	+1.69%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.54%	11.59%	+1.95%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.72%	15.74%	-0.02%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.87%	16.84%	+0.03%

CWS vs. RFDA - Expense Ratio Comparison

CWS has a 0.77% expense ratio, which is higher than RFDA's 0.52% expense ratio.

Dividends

CWS vs. RFDA - Dividend Comparison

CWS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.30%, less than RFDA's 1.83% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
CWS AdvisorShares Focused Equity ETF	0.30%	0.31%	0.59%	0.25%	0.50%	0.16%	0.27%	0.39%	2.07%	0.29%	0.03%
RFDA RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF	1.83%	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 CWS and RFDA in my portfolio?

CWS and RFDA have a correlation of 0.60, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, CWS or RFDA?

CWS has higher volatility (3.92%) compared to RFDA (2.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CWS dropped -33.82% vs RFDA's -34.60%.

Which ETF is better, CWS or RFDA?

On 5-year performance, RFDA leads with 12.99% vs 8.23% for CWS. On fees, RFDA is cheaper at 0.52% per year. On volatility, RFDA has been the lower-risk option at 2.36%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CWS or RFDA?

Over the 5-year period, RFDA has performed better with a 12.99% return vs 8.23%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CWS or RFDA?

RFDA is cheaper with a 0.52% expense ratio, compared with 0.77% for CWS.

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

RFDA has the higher dividend yield at 1.83%, compared with 0.30% for CWS.

What is the main difference between CWS and RFDA?

They also come from different issuers: AdvisorShares and SS&C. Their fees differ too: 0.77% for CWS and 0.52% for RFDA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RFDA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.06 vs -0.05), 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.