EBIT vs. HAPS

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

EBIT (Harbor AlphaEdge Small Cap Earners ETF) and HAPS (Harbor Human Capital Factor US Small Cap ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EBIT is a Small Cap Value Equities fund tracking the Harbor AlphaEdge Small Cap Earners Index, while HAPS is a Small Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Human Capital Factor Small Cap Index - Benchmark TR Gross. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, EBIT returned 23.46% vs 29.43% for HAPS. Their correlation of 0.92 suggests significant overlap in exposure. EBIT charges 0.29%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for HAPS.

Performance

EBIT vs. HAPS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Harbor AlphaEdge Small Cap Earners ETF (EBIT) and Harbor Human Capital Factor US Small Cap ETF (HAPS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EBIT achieves a 17.90% return, which is significantly lower than HAPS's 19.15% return.

EBIT

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 0.38%
• 6M: 12.46%
• YTD: 17.90%
• 1Y: 23.46%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

HAPS

• 1D: -0.05%
• 1M: 4.20%
• 6M: 13.80%
• YTD: 19.15%
• 1Y: 29.43%
• 3Y*: 12.51%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

EBIT vs. HAPS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
EBIT Harbor AlphaEdge Small Cap Earners ETF	17.90%	6.85%	9.01%
HAPS Harbor Human Capital Factor US Small Cap ETF	19.15%	8.35%	10.89%

Correlation

The correlation between EBIT and HAPS is 0.91, 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	0.91
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 10, 2024	0.92

The correlation between EBIT and HAPS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.91 to 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.

EBIT vs. HAPS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EBIT	HAPS
Financial Services	25.8%	17.3%
Consumer Cyclical	14.4%	8.4%
Industrials	14.2%	14.7%
Energy	11.9%	7.2%
Real Estate	7.7%	5.9%
Technology	7.7%	16.8%
Basic Materials	4.4%	5.7%
Healthcare	4.4%	16.1%
Communication Services	3.6%	2.7%
Consumer Defensive	3.1%	2.7%
Utilities	2.9%	2.5%

Return for Risk

EBIT vs. HAPS — Risk / Return Rank

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

EBIT

EBIT Risk / Return Rank: 57
EBIT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 50
EBIT Sortino Ratio Rank: 55
EBIT Omega Ratio Rank: 50
EBIT Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
EBIT Martin Ratio Rank: 59

HAPS

HAPS Risk / Return Rank: 69
HAPS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
HAPS Sortino Ratio Rank: 72
HAPS Omega Ratio Rank: 63
HAPS Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
HAPS Martin Ratio Rank: 70

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. HAPS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Harbor AlphaEdge Small Cap Earners ETF (EBIT) and Harbor Human Capital Factor US Small Cap ETF (HAPS). 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.

	EBIT	HAPS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.40	1.75	-0.35
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.14	2.60	-0.46
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.30	-0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.83	2.95	-0.13
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.18	10.02	-1.85

EBIT vs. HAPS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EBIT Sharpe Ratio is 1.40, which is comparable to the HAPS Sharpe Ratio of 1.75. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EBIT and HAPS, 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

EBIT vs. HAPS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EBIT drawdown since its inception was -26.64%, roughly equal to the maximum HAPS drawdown of -27.44%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EBIT and HAPS.

Drawdown Indicators

	EBIT	HAPS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-26.64%	-27.44%	+0.80%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.34%	-10.01%	+1.67%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-27.44%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.54%	-0.83%	-0.71%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.24%	-5.94%	-0.30%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.88%	2.94%	-0.06%

Volatility

EBIT vs. HAPS - Volatility Comparison

Harbor AlphaEdge Small Cap Earners ETF (EBIT) and Harbor Human Capital Factor US Small Cap ETF (HAPS) have volatilities of 3.70% and 3.85%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EBIT	HAPS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.70%	3.85%	-0.15%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.63%	11.93%	-1.30%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.90%	16.93%	-0.03%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.88%	20.65%	+0.23%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.88%	20.65%	+0.23%

EBIT vs. HAPS - Expense Ratio Comparison

EBIT has a 0.29% expense ratio, which is lower than HAPS's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

EBIT vs. HAPS - Dividend Comparison

EBIT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.69%, more than HAPS's 0.48% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
EBIT Harbor AlphaEdge Small Cap Earners ETF	1.69%	2.00%	2.40%	0.00%
HAPS Harbor Human Capital Factor US Small Cap ETF	0.48%	0.57%	0.72%	0.42%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EBIT and HAPS in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.91, EBIT and HAPS move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, EBIT or HAPS?

HAPS has higher volatility (3.85%) compared to EBIT (3.70%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EBIT dropped -26.64% vs HAPS's -27.44%.

Which ETF is better, EBIT or HAPS?

On 1-year performance, HAPS leads with 29.43% vs 23.46% for EBIT. On fees, EBIT is cheaper at 0.29% per year. On volatility, EBIT has been the lower-risk option at 3.70%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EBIT or HAPS?

Over the 1-year period, HAPS has performed better with a 29.43% return vs 23.46%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EBIT or HAPS?

EBIT is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for HAPS.

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

EBIT has the higher dividend yield at 1.69%, compared with 0.48% for HAPS.

What is the main difference between EBIT and HAPS?

EBIT is categorized as Small Cap Value Equities, while HAPS is Small Cap Blend Equities. EBIT tracks Harbor AlphaEdge Small Cap Earners Index, while HAPS tracks Human Capital Factor Small Cap Index - Benchmark TR Gross. Their fees differ too: 0.29% for EBIT and 0.60% for HAPS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

HAPS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.75 vs 1.40), 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.