PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
EFAD vs. FDT
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

EFAD vs. FDT - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ProShares MSCI EAFE Dividend Growers ETF (EFAD) and First Trust Developed Markets ex-US AlphaDEX Fund (FDT). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EFAD achieves a 1.98% return, which is significantly lower than FDT's 25.50% return. Over the past 10 years, EFAD has underperformed FDT with an annualized return of 4.08%, while FDT has yielded a comparatively higher 10.91% annualized return.


EFAD

1D
-0.94%
1M
1.01%
YTD
1.98%
6M
2.48%
1Y
2.83%
3Y*
6.48%
5Y*
0.93%
10Y*
4.08%

FDT

1D
-0.64%
1M
5.22%
YTD
25.50%
6M
28.63%
1Y
55.05%
3Y*
30.08%
5Y*
12.55%
10Y*
10.91%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

EFAD vs. FDT - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
EFAD
ProShares MSCI EAFE Dividend Growers ETF
1.98%15.87%-1.88%11.91%-21.34%8.41%8.75%24.66%-11.71%22.14%
FDT
First Trust Developed Markets ex-US AlphaDEX Fund
25.50%52.21%6.97%15.03%-19.51%11.43%4.29%16.82%-19.98%34.42%

Correlation

The correlation between EFAD and FDT is 0.77, 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

0.77

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.77

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.79

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.81

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 22, 2014

0.81

The correlation between EFAD and FDT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.77 to 0.81 - a consistent structural relationship.

EFAD vs. FDT - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
EFAD
FDT

Healthcare

18.1%
1.4%

Industrials

15.6%
34.0%

Technology

15.5%
8.1%

Financial Services

13.9%
10.2%

Consumer Defensive

9.8%
2.8%

Basic Materials

8.7%
9.6%

Utilities

8.4%
5.2%

Communication Services

6.4%
2.7%

Real Estate

3.6%
5.3%

Energy

1.3%
9.2%

Consumer Cyclical

-

11.5%

Healthcare

EFAD
18.1%
FDT
1.4%

Industrials

EFAD
15.6%
FDT
34.0%

Technology

EFAD
15.5%
FDT
8.1%

Financial Services

EFAD
13.9%
FDT
10.2%

Consumer Defensive

EFAD
9.8%
FDT
2.8%

Basic Materials

EFAD
8.7%
FDT
9.6%

Utilities

EFAD
8.4%
FDT
5.2%

Communication Services

EFAD
6.4%
FDT
2.7%

Real Estate

EFAD
3.6%
FDT
5.3%

Energy

EFAD
1.3%
FDT
9.2%

Consumer Cyclical

EFAD

-

FDT
11.5%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

EFAD vs. FDT — Risk / Return Rank

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

EFAD
EFAD Risk / Return Rank: 1212
Overall Rank
EFAD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1111
Sharpe Ratio Rank
EFAD Sortino Ratio Rank: 1111
Sortino Ratio Rank
EFAD Omega Ratio Rank: 1111
Omega Ratio Rank
EFAD Calmar Ratio Rank: 1212
Calmar Ratio Rank
EFAD Martin Ratio Rank: 1313
Martin Ratio Rank

FDT
FDT Risk / Return Rank: 8484
Overall Rank
FDT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8888
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FDT Sortino Ratio Rank: 8484
Sortino Ratio Rank
FDT Omega Ratio Rank: 8686
Omega Ratio Rank
FDT Calmar Ratio Rank: 7979
Calmar Ratio Rank
FDT Martin Ratio Rank: 8181
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

EFAD vs. FDT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ProShares MSCI EAFE Dividend Growers ETF (EFAD) and First Trust Developed Markets ex-US AlphaDEX Fund (FDT). 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.


EFADFDTDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-2.79

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-3.46

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.05

1.54

-0.49

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

0.28

4.13

-3.85

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

0.92

16.12

-15.20

EFAD vs. FDT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EFAD Sharpe Ratio is 0.21, which is lower than the FDT Sharpe Ratio of 3.00. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EFAD and FDT, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


EFADFDTDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.21

3.00

-2.79

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.06

0.69

-0.63

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.26

0.59

-0.33

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.18

0.40

-0.22

Drawdowns

EFAD vs. FDT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EFAD drawdown since its inception was -35.74%, smaller than the maximum FDT drawdown of -46.10%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EFAD and FDT.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


EFADFDTDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-35.74%

-46.10%

+10.36%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.18%

-13.41%

+3.23%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-13.35%

-14.29%

+0.94%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-35.74%

-33.18%

-2.56%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-35.74%

-46.10%

+10.36%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-3.70%

-1.59%

-2.11%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-10.32%

-10.78%

+0.46%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.09%

3.43%

-0.34%

Volatility

EFAD vs. FDT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ProShares MSCI EAFE Dividend Growers ETF (EFAD) is 3.94%, while First Trust Developed Markets ex-US AlphaDEX Fund (FDT) has a volatility of 7.23%. This indicates that EFAD experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FDT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


EFADFDTDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.94%

7.23%

-3.29%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.67%

15.91%

-5.24%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.27%

18.42%

-5.15%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

14.39%

18.23%

-3.84%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

15.67%

18.52%

-2.85%

EFAD vs. FDT - Expense Ratio Comparison

EFAD has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than FDT's 0.80% expense ratio.


Dividends

EFAD vs. FDT - Dividend Comparison

EFAD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.82%, which matches FDT's 2.84% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
EFAD
ProShares MSCI EAFE Dividend Growers ETF
2.82%2.83%2.64%2.29%1.76%2.98%1.49%2.05%2.37%2.42%2.88%1.94%
FDT
First Trust Developed Markets ex-US AlphaDEX Fund
2.84%3.27%3.89%4.36%2.29%3.80%2.42%2.78%2.13%1.57%1.76%1.83%

Frequently Asked Questions


EFAD and FDT have a correlation of 0.77, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

FDT has higher volatility (7.23%) compared to EFAD (3.94%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EFAD dropped -35.74% vs FDT's -46.10%.

On 10-year performance, FDT leads with 10.91% vs 4.08% for EFAD. On fees, EFAD is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, EFAD has been the lower-risk option at 3.94%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, FDT has performed better with a 10.91% return vs 4.08%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

EFAD is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.80% for FDT.

FDT has the higher dividend yield at 2.84%, compared with 2.82% for EFAD.

EFAD tracks MSCI EAFE Dividend Masters Index, while FDT tracks NASDAQ AlphaDEX DM Ex-US Index. They also come from different issuers: ProShares and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for EFAD and 0.80% for FDT.

FDT currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.00 vs 0.21), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for EFAD and FDT

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer