EUSA vs. ROE

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

EUSA (iShares MSCI USA Equal Weighted ETF) and ROE (Astoria US Equal Weight Quality Kings ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EUSA is a Mid Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the MSCI USA Equal Weighted Index, while ROE is a Large Cap Value Equities fund actively managed by Astoria. EUSA is passively managed, while ROE is actively managed. Over the past year, EUSA returned 17.88% vs 35.22% for ROE. Their correlation of 0.90 suggests significant overlap in exposure. EUSA charges 0.09%/yr vs 0.49%/yr for ROE.

Performance

EUSA vs. ROE - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI USA Equal Weighted ETF (EUSA) and Astoria US Equal Weight Quality Kings ETF (ROE). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EUSA achieves a 10.06% return, which is significantly lower than ROE's 20.25% return.

EUSA

• 1D: 0.43%
• 1M: 1.53%
• YTD: 10.06%
• 6M: 8.62%
• 1Y: 17.88%
• 3Y*: 15.73%
• 5Y*: 7.65%
• 10Y*: 12.28%

ROE

• 1D: 0.92%
• 1M: 1.95%
• YTD: 20.25%
• 6M: 18.14%
• 1Y: 35.22%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

EUSA vs. ROE - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
EUSA iShares MSCI USA Equal Weighted ETF	10.06%	10.24%	14.64%	3.86%
ROE Astoria US Equal Weight Quality Kings ETF	20.25%	17.20%	18.34%	4.31%

Correlation

The correlation between EUSA and ROE is 0.82, 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	0.82
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 1, 2023	0.90

The correlation between EUSA and ROE has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.

EUSA vs. ROE - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EUSA	ROE
Technology	20.3%	40.3%
Industrials	15.3%	8.7%
Financial Services	14.7%	10.6%
Consumer Cyclical	11.1%	8.9%
Healthcare	10.8%	8.1%
Utilities	5.4%	2.0%
Consumer Defensive	5.3%	4.3%
Real Estate	5.2%	1.8%
Basic Materials	4.3%	1.7%
Communication Services	4.0%	10.4%
Energy	3.8%	3.3%

Return for Risk

EUSA vs. ROE — Risk / Return Rank

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

EUSA

EUSA Risk / Return Rank: 51
EUSA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 50
EUSA Sortino Ratio Rank: 50
EUSA Omega Ratio Rank: 46
EUSA Calmar Ratio Rank: 54
EUSA Martin Ratio Rank: 59

ROE

ROE Risk / Return Rank: 85
ROE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 85
ROE Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
ROE Omega Ratio Rank: 81
ROE Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
ROE Martin Ratio Rank: 90

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.

EUSA vs. ROE - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI USA Equal Weighted ETF (EUSA) and Astoria US Equal Weight Quality Kings ETF (ROE). 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.

	EUSA	ROE	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.49	2.39	-0.90
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.16	3.18	-1.02
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.42	-0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.30	4.09	-1.79
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.03	17.94	-8.91

EUSA vs. ROE - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EUSA Sharpe Ratio is 1.49, which is lower than the ROE Sharpe Ratio of 2.39. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EUSA and ROE, 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

EUSA vs. ROE - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EUSA drawdown since its inception was -39.16%, which is greater than ROE's maximum drawdown of -19.10%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EUSA and ROE.

Drawdown Indicators

	EUSA	ROE	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-39.16%	-19.10%	-20.06%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.82%	-8.66%	+0.84%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.20%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.24%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-39.16%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.62%	-1.38%	+0.76%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.58%	-2.56%	-2.02%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.99%	1.97%	+0.02%

Volatility

EUSA vs. ROE - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI USA Equal Weighted ETF (EUSA) is 3.67%, while Astoria US Equal Weight Quality Kings ETF (ROE) has a volatility of 6.16%. This indicates that EUSA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ROE based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EUSA	ROE	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.67%	6.16%	-2.49%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.09%	11.74%	-2.65%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.04%	14.79%	-2.75%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.99%	15.98%	+1.01%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.32%	15.98%	+2.34%

EUSA vs. ROE - Expense Ratio Comparison

EUSA has a 0.09% expense ratio, which is lower than ROE's 0.49% expense ratio.

Dividends

EUSA vs. ROE - Dividend Comparison

EUSA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.47%, more than ROE's 0.94% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EUSA iShares MSCI USA Equal Weighted ETF	1.47%	1.63%	1.47%	1.53%	1.73%	1.23%	1.45%	1.49%	2.01%	1.50%	1.59%	2.21%
ROE Astoria US Equal Weight Quality Kings ETF	0.94%	0.97%	1.18%	0.68%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EUSA and ROE in my portfolio?

EUSA and ROE have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EUSA or ROE?

ROE has higher volatility (6.16%) compared to EUSA (3.67%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EUSA dropped -39.16% vs ROE's -19.10%.

Which ETF is better, EUSA or ROE?

On 1-year performance, ROE leads with 35.22% vs 17.88% for EUSA. On fees, EUSA is cheaper at 0.09% per year. On volatility, EUSA has been the lower-risk option at 3.67%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EUSA or ROE?

Over the 1-year period, ROE has performed better with a 35.22% return vs 17.88%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EUSA or ROE?

EUSA is cheaper with a 0.09% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for ROE.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EUSA or ROE?

EUSA has the higher dividend yield at 1.47%, compared with 0.94% for ROE.

What is the main difference between EUSA and ROE?

EUSA is categorized as Mid Cap Blend Equities, while ROE is Large Cap Value Equities. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Astoria. Their fees differ too: 0.09% for EUSA and 0.49% for ROE.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ROE currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.39 vs 1.49), 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.