FLCG vs. RFDA

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

FLCG (Federated Hermes MDT 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 year, FLCG returned 12.86% vs 27.34% for RFDA. Their 0.76 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. FLCG charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.52%/yr for RFDA.

Performance

FLCG vs. RFDA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Federated Hermes MDT Large Cap Growth ETF (FLCG) 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, FLCG achieves a 4.23% return, which is significantly lower than RFDA's 15.03% return.

FLCG

• 1D: 2.10%
• 1M: 2.32%
• 6M: 6.03%
• YTD: 4.23%
• 1Y: 12.86%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 17.32%

RFDA

• 1D: 0.78%
• 1M: 2.46%
• 6M: 12.74%
• YTD: 15.03%
• 1Y: 27.34%
• 3Y*: 19.02%
• 5Y*: 13.00%
• 10Y*: 13.34%
• ALL TIME*: 13.46%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
FLCG Federated Hermes MDT Large Cap Growth ETF	$2.30M	$2.54M	$2.59M
RFDA RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF	$108.91K	$106.06K	$119.38K

FLCG vs. RFDA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FLCG Federated Hermes MDT Large Cap Growth ETF	4.23%	16.87%	13.11%
RFDA RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF	15.03%	16.42%	4.54%

Correlation

The correlation between FLCG and RFDA is 0.67, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.67
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 31, 2024	0.76

The correlation between FLCG and RFDA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.67 to 0.76 - a consistent structural relationship.

FLCG vs. RFDA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FLCG	RFDA
Technology	56.8%	15.4%
Communication Services	14.8%	6.2%
Consumer Cyclical	9.4%	8.1%
Industrials	5.5%	9.3%
Healthcare	5.4%	12.2%
Financial Services	3.2%	18.8%
Utilities	3.2%	4.9%
Consumer Defensive	0.8%	7.1%
Basic Materials	0.7%	1.8%
Energy	0.2%	11.1%
Real Estate	-	5.1%

Return for Risk

FLCG vs. RFDA — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

FLCG

FLCG Risk / Return Rank: 29
FLCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 30
FLCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
FLCG Omega Ratio Rank: 28
FLCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 26
FLCG Martin Ratio Rank: 29

RFDA

RFDA Risk / Return Rank: 91
RFDA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
RFDA Sortino Ratio Rank: 89
RFDA Omega Ratio Rank: 90
RFDA Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
RFDA Martin Ratio Rank: 93

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

FLCG vs. RFDA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Federated Hermes MDT Large Cap Growth ETF (FLCG) 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.

	FLCG	RFDA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.77	2.36	-1.59
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.16	3.23	-2.07
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.14	1.43	-0.29
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.86	5.04	-4.18
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.63	18.04	-15.41

FLCG vs. RFDA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLCG Sharpe Ratio is 0.77, which is lower than the RFDA Sharpe Ratio of 2.36. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLCG 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

FLCG vs. RFDA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLCG drawdown since its inception was -22.95%, smaller than the maximum RFDA drawdown of -34.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLCG and RFDA.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLCG	RFDA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.95%	-34.60%	+11.65%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.07%	-5.45%	-9.62%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-19.35%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-19.35%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-34.60%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.41%	-0.06%	-2.35%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.75%	-3.70%	-0.05%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.91%	1.52%	+3.39%

Volatility

FLCG vs. RFDA - Volatility Comparison

Federated Hermes MDT Large Cap Growth ETF (FLCG) has a higher volatility of 5.76% compared to RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF (RFDA) at 2.90%. This indicates that FLCG'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

	FLCG	RFDA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.76%	2.90%	+2.86%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.31%	8.68%	+4.63%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	16.75%	11.67%	+5.08%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.02%	15.73%	+5.29%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.02%	16.84%	+4.18%

FLCG vs. RFDA - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLCG has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than RFDA's 0.52% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLCG vs. RFDA - Dividend Comparison

FLCG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.05%, less than RFDA's 1.76% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
FLCG Federated Hermes MDT Large Cap Growth ETF	0.05%	0.05%	0.06%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RFDA RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF	1.76%	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 FLCG and RFDA in my portfolio?

FLCG and RFDA have a correlation of 0.67, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FLCG or RFDA?

FLCG has higher volatility (5.76%) compared to RFDA (2.90%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLCG dropped -22.95% vs RFDA's -34.60%.

Which ETF is better, FLCG or RFDA?

On 1-year performance, RFDA leads with 27.34% vs 12.86% for FLCG. On fees, FLCG is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, RFDA has been the lower-risk option at 2.90%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLCG or RFDA?

Over the 1-year period, RFDA has performed better with a 27.34% return vs 12.86%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLCG or RFDA?

FLCG is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.52% for RFDA.

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

RFDA has the higher dividend yield at 1.76%, compared with 0.05% for FLCG.

What is the main difference between FLCG and RFDA?

They also come from different issuers: Federated and SS&C. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for FLCG and 0.52% for RFDA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RFDA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.36 vs 0.77), 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.