EBIT vs. CAOS

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

EBIT (Harbor AlphaEdge Small Cap Earners ETF) and CAOS (Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EBIT is a Small Cap Value Equities fund tracking the Harbor AlphaEdge Small Cap Earners Index, while CAOS is a Options Trading fund actively managed by Alpha Architect. EBIT is passively managed, while CAOS is actively managed. Over the past year, EBIT returned 26.62% vs 1.88% for CAOS. At a correlation of -0.33, they often move in opposite directions. EBIT charges 0.29%/yr vs 0.63%/yr for CAOS.

Performance

EBIT vs. CAOS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Harbor AlphaEdge Small Cap Earners ETF (EBIT) and Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EBIT achieves a 12.09% return, which is significantly higher than CAOS's 0.82% return.

EBIT

• 1D: -1.12%
• 1M: 0.30%
• YTD: 12.09%
• 6M: 10.33%
• 1Y: 26.62%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CAOS

• 1D: 0.12%
• 1M: -0.09%
• YTD: 0.82%
• 6M: 0.69%
• 1Y: 1.88%
• 3Y*: 4.26%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

EBIT vs. CAOS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
EBIT Harbor AlphaEdge Small Cap Earners ETF	12.09%	6.85%	8.29%
CAOS Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF	0.82%	2.55%	2.67%

Correlation

The correlation between EBIT and CAOS is -0.30, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.30
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 11, 2024	-0.33

EBIT vs. CAOS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EBIT	CAOS
Financial Services	25.5%	12.4%
Consumer Cyclical	14.4%	10.0%
Industrials	13.3%	8.5%
Energy	11.7%	4.1%
Technology	7.7%	33.1%
Real Estate	7.2%	2.0%
Healthcare	4.2%	9.6%
Communication Services	3.7%	10.4%
Basic Materials	3.6%	1.9%
Utilities	3.4%	2.6%
Consumer Defensive	3.2%	5.4%

Return for Risk

EBIT vs. CAOS — Risk / Return Rank

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

EBIT

EBIT Risk / Return Rank: 52
EBIT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 45
EBIT Sortino Ratio Rank: 49
EBIT Omega Ratio Rank: 45
EBIT Calmar Ratio Rank: 65
EBIT Martin Ratio Rank: 54

CAOS

CAOS Risk / Return Rank: 40
CAOS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 34
CAOS Sortino Ratio Rank: 37
CAOS Omega Ratio Rank: 39
CAOS Calmar Ratio Rank: 49
CAOS Martin Ratio Rank: 39

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.

EBIT vs. CAOS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Harbor AlphaEdge Small Cap Earners ETF (EBIT) and Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS). 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.

	EBIT	CAOS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.57	1.24	+0.33
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.37	1.98	+0.39
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.26	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.21	2.49	+0.71
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.20	6.22	+2.97
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EBIT vs. CAOS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EBIT Sharpe Ratio is 1.57, which is comparable to the CAOS Sharpe Ratio of 1.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EBIT and CAOS, 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

	EBIT	CAOS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.57	1.24	+0.33
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.70	1.21	-0.51

Drawdowns

EBIT vs. CAOS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EBIT drawdown since its inception was -26.64%, which is greater than CAOS's maximum drawdown of -3.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EBIT and CAOS.

Drawdown Indicators

	EBIT	CAOS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-26.64%	-3.60%	-23.04%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.34%	-0.76%	-7.58%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-3.60%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.34%	-1.07%	-0.27%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.55%	-0.90%	-5.65%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.90%	0.30%	+2.60%

Volatility

EBIT vs. CAOS - Volatility Comparison

Harbor AlphaEdge Small Cap Earners ETF (EBIT) has a higher volatility of 3.99% compared to Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS) at 0.26%. This indicates that EBIT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CAOS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EBIT	CAOS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.99%	0.26%	+3.73%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.71%	1.03%	+9.68%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.13%	1.52%	+15.61%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.24%	4.26%	+16.98%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.24%	4.26%	+16.98%

EBIT vs. CAOS - Expense Ratio Comparison

EBIT has a 0.29% expense ratio, which is lower than CAOS's 0.63% expense ratio.

Dividends

EBIT vs. CAOS - Dividend Comparison

EBIT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.78%, while CAOS has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
CAOS Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
EBIT Harbor AlphaEdge Small Cap Earners ETF	1.78%	2.00%	2.40%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EBIT and CAOS in my portfolio?

EBIT and CAOS have a correlation of -0.30, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EBIT or CAOS?

EBIT has higher volatility (3.99%) compared to CAOS (0.26%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EBIT dropped -26.64% vs CAOS's -3.60%.

Which ETF is better, EBIT or CAOS?

On 1-year performance, EBIT leads with 26.62% vs 1.88% for CAOS. On fees, EBIT is cheaper at 0.29% per year. On volatility, CAOS has been the lower-risk option at 0.26%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EBIT or CAOS?

Over the 1-year period, EBIT has performed better with a 26.62% return vs 1.88%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EBIT or CAOS?

EBIT is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.63% for CAOS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EBIT or CAOS?

EBIT has the higher dividend yield at 1.78%, compared with 0.00% for CAOS.

What is the main difference between EBIT and CAOS?

EBIT is categorized as Small Cap Value Equities, while CAOS is Options Trading. They also come from different issuers: Harbor and Alpha Architect. Their fees differ too: 0.29% for EBIT and 0.63% for CAOS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EBIT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.57 vs 1.24), 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.