FLDZ vs. IWS

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

FLDZ (RiverNorth Patriot ETF) and IWS (iShares Russell Mid-Cap Value ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FLDZ is a Mid Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by RiverNorth, while IWS is a Mid Cap Value Equities fund tracking the Russell Midcap Value Index. FLDZ is actively managed, while IWS is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, FLDZ returned 13.52%/yr vs 17.66%/yr for IWS. With a 0.96 correlation, they move nearly in lockstep. FLDZ charges 0.77%/yr vs 0.23%/yr for IWS.

Performance

FLDZ vs. IWS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in RiverNorth Patriot ETF (FLDZ) and iShares Russell Mid-Cap Value ETF (IWS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FLDZ achieves a 5.89% return, which is significantly lower than IWS's 17.05% return.

FLDZ

• 1D: 0.29%
• 1M: 0.87%
• YTD: 5.89%
• 6M: 4.45%
• 1Y: 9.37%
• 3Y*: 13.52%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

IWS

• 1D: 0.69%
• 1M: 3.76%
• YTD: 17.05%
• 6M: 15.46%
• 1Y: 29.21%
• 3Y*: 17.66%
• 5Y*: 9.34%
• 10Y*: 10.68%

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

FLDZ vs. IWS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
FLDZ RiverNorth Patriot ETF	5.89%	6.66%	15.99%	12.15%	-12.07%
IWS iShares Russell Mid-Cap Value ETF	17.05%	10.82%	12.91%	12.52%	-12.29%

Correlation

The correlation between FLDZ and IWS 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 (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.95
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 3, 2022	0.96

The correlation between FLDZ and IWS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.91 to 0.96 - a consistent structural relationship.

FLDZ vs. IWS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FLDZ	IWS
Financial Services	15.6%	13.7%
Consumer Cyclical	14.4%	8.5%
Industrials	13.1%	16.2%
Healthcare	12.3%	7.6%
Utilities	11.6%	6.6%
Energy	10.8%	7.4%
Real Estate	8.3%	8.3%
Consumer Defensive	4.9%	4.7%
Communication Services	4.0%	3.1%
Technology	2.8%	18.7%
Basic Materials	1.6%	5.3%

Return for Risk

FLDZ vs. IWS — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLDZ

FLDZ Risk / Return Rank: 26
FLDZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 24
FLDZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 23
FLDZ Omega Ratio Rank: 22
FLDZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 31
FLDZ Martin Ratio Rank: 32

IWS

IWS Risk / Return Rank: 72
IWS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
IWS Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
IWS Omega Ratio Rank: 65
IWS Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
IWS Martin Ratio Rank: 78

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.

FLDZ vs. IWS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for RiverNorth Patriot ETF (FLDZ) and iShares Russell Mid-Cap Value ETF (IWS). 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.

	FLDZ	IWS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.82	2.17	-1.35
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.25	3.07	-1.82
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.15	1.38	-0.23
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.51	3.90	-2.39
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.56	14.62	-10.06

FLDZ vs. IWS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLDZ Sharpe Ratio is 0.82, which is lower than the IWS Sharpe Ratio of 2.17. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLDZ and IWS, 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

FLDZ vs. IWS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLDZ drawdown since its inception was -19.54%, smaller than the maximum IWS drawdown of -62.40%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLDZ and IWS.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLDZ	IWS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.54%	-62.40%	+42.86%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.25%	-7.53%	+1.28%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.43%	-20.57%	+3.14%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-21.23%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-43.83%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.06%	-0.16%	-0.90%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.92%	-8.00%	+2.08%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.06%	2.00%	+0.06%

Volatility

FLDZ vs. IWS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for RiverNorth Patriot ETF (FLDZ) is 2.83%, while iShares Russell Mid-Cap Value ETF (IWS) has a volatility of 4.18%. This indicates that FLDZ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than IWS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLDZ	IWS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.83%	4.18%	-1.35%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.84%	10.04%	-2.20%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.44%	13.55%	-2.11%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.86%	17.32%	-0.46%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.86%	19.39%	-2.53%

FLDZ vs. IWS - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLDZ has a 0.77% expense ratio, which is higher than IWS's 0.23% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLDZ vs. IWS - Dividend Comparison

FLDZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.45%, more than IWS's 1.33% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FLDZ RiverNorth Patriot ETF	1.45%	1.54%	1.17%	1.39%	1.52%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
IWS iShares Russell Mid-Cap Value ETF	1.33%	1.53%	1.50%	1.76%	1.93%	1.39%	1.87%	1.97%	2.53%	1.96%	2.10%	2.14%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLDZ and IWS in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.91, FLDZ and IWS 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, FLDZ or IWS?

IWS has higher volatility (4.18%) compared to FLDZ (2.83%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLDZ dropped -19.54% vs IWS's -62.40%.

Which ETF is better, FLDZ or IWS?

On 3-year performance, IWS leads with 17.66% vs 13.52% for FLDZ. On fees, IWS is cheaper at 0.23% per year. On volatility, FLDZ has been the lower-risk option at 2.83%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLDZ or IWS?

Over the 3-year period, IWS has performed better with a 17.66% return vs 13.52%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLDZ or IWS?

IWS is cheaper with a 0.23% expense ratio, compared with 0.77% for FLDZ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FLDZ or IWS?

FLDZ has the higher dividend yield at 1.45%, compared with 1.33% for IWS.

What is the main difference between FLDZ and IWS?

FLDZ is categorized as Mid Cap Blend Equities, while IWS is Mid Cap Value Equities. They also come from different issuers: RiverNorth and iShares. Their fees differ too: 0.77% for FLDZ and 0.23% for IWS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

IWS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.17 vs 0.82), 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.