FFLG vs. RFDA

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FFLG (Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Growth 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, FFLG returned 10.19%/yr vs 12.89%/yr for RFDA. A 0.77 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FFLG charges 0.38%/yr vs 0.52%/yr for RFDA.

Performance

FFLG vs. RFDA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Growth ETF (FFLG) 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, FFLG achieves a 11.85% return, which is significantly higher than RFDA's 10.77% return.

FFLG

• 1D: -2.73%
• 1M: -1.13%
• YTD: 11.85%
• 6M: 10.60%
• 1Y: 32.21%
• 3Y*: 26.87%
• 5Y*: 10.19%
• 10Y*: —

RFDA

• 1D: 0.22%
• 1M: 0.36%
• YTD: 10.77%
• 6M: 9.90%
• 1Y: 26.59%
• 3Y*: 18.80%
• 5Y*: 12.89%
• 10Y*: 13.39%

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

FFLG vs. RFDA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
FFLG Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Growth ETF	11.85%	19.61%	32.29%	49.71%	-37.86%	2.32%
RFDA RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF	10.77%	16.42%	20.12%	16.98%	-8.58%	24.48%

Correlation

The correlation between FFLG and RFDA is 0.68, 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	0.68
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.77
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.77
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 4, 2021	0.77

The correlation between FFLG and RFDA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.68 to 0.77 - a consistent structural relationship.

FFLG vs. RFDA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FFLG	RFDA
Technology	52.8%	21.1%
Communication Services	13.5%	8.3%
Consumer Cyclical	10.8%	7.4%
Healthcare	6.7%	9.7%
Industrials	5.7%	8.6%
Financial Services	3.1%	14.4%
Basic Materials	1.4%	1.9%
Utilities	1.4%	4.8%
Real Estate	0.7%	4.9%
Consumer Defensive	0.5%	7.0%
Energy	0.3%	11.7%

Return for Risk

FFLG vs. RFDA — Risk / Return Rank

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

FFLG

FFLG Risk / Return Rank: 48
FFLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 49
FFLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 46
FFLG Omega Ratio Rank: 46
FFLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 48
FFLG Martin Ratio Rank: 52

RFDA

RFDA Risk / Return Rank: 81
RFDA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
RFDA Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
RFDA Omega Ratio Rank: 78
RFDA Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
RFDA Martin Ratio Rank: 87

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.

FFLG vs. RFDA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Growth ETF (FFLG) 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.

	FFLG	RFDA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.63	2.28	-0.65
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.19	3.14	-0.95
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.28	1.42	-0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.27	4.90	-2.63
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.62	17.52	-8.91

FFLG vs. RFDA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FFLG Sharpe Ratio is 1.63, which is comparable to the RFDA Sharpe Ratio of 2.28. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FFLG 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

FFLG vs. RFDA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FFLG drawdown since its inception was -44.52%, which is greater than RFDA's maximum drawdown of -34.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FFLG and RFDA.

Drawdown Indicators

	FFLG	RFDA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-44.52%	-34.60%	-9.92%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.23%	-5.45%	-8.78%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.72%	-19.35%	-7.37%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-44.52%	-19.35%	-25.17%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-34.60%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.84%	-1.67%	-3.17%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-14.16%	-3.73%	-10.43%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.75%	1.52%	+2.23%

Volatility

FFLG vs. RFDA - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Growth ETF (FFLG) has a higher volatility of 8.52% compared to RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF (RFDA) at 3.29%. This indicates that FFLG'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

	FFLG	RFDA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.52%	3.29%	+5.23%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.85%	8.77%	+7.08%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.86%	11.72%	+8.14%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	25.56%	15.75%	+9.81%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.49%	16.87%	+8.62%

FFLG vs. RFDA - Expense Ratio Comparison

FFLG has a 0.38% expense ratio, which is lower than RFDA's 0.52% expense ratio.

Dividends

FFLG vs. RFDA - Dividend Comparison

FFLG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.13%, less than RFDA's 1.80% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
FFLG Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Growth ETF	0.13%	0.14%	0.09%	0.00%	1.50%	0.55%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RFDA RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF	1.80%	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 FFLG and RFDA in my portfolio?

FFLG and RFDA have a correlation of 0.68, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FFLG or RFDA?

FFLG has higher volatility (8.52%) compared to RFDA (3.29%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FFLG dropped -44.52% vs RFDA's -34.60%.

Which ETF is better, FFLG or RFDA?

On 5-year performance, RFDA leads with 12.89% vs 10.19% for FFLG. On fees, FFLG is cheaper at 0.38% per year. On volatility, RFDA has been the lower-risk option at 3.29%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FFLG or RFDA?

Over the 5-year period, RFDA has performed better with a 12.89% return vs 10.19%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FFLG or RFDA?

FFLG is cheaper with a 0.38% expense ratio, compared with 0.52% for RFDA.

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

RFDA has the higher dividend yield at 1.80%, compared with 0.13% for FFLG.

What is the main difference between FFLG and RFDA?

They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and SS&C. Their fees differ too: 0.38% for FFLG and 0.52% for RFDA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RFDA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.28 vs 1.63), 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.