FLDZ vs. MOO

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

FLDZ (RiverNorth Patriot ETF) and MOO (VanEck Agribusiness ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FLDZ is a Mid Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by RiverNorth, while MOO is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the MVIS Global Agribusiness Index. FLDZ is actively managed, while MOO is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, FLDZ returned 13.52%/yr vs 1.40%/yr for MOO. A 0.72 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FLDZ charges 0.77%/yr vs 0.55%/yr for MOO.

Performance

FLDZ vs. MOO - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in RiverNorth Patriot ETF (FLDZ) and VanEck Agribusiness ETF (MOO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with FLDZ having a 5.89% return and MOO slightly lower at 5.65%.

FLDZ

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

MOO

• 1D: -0.08%
• 1M: -4.20%
• YTD: 5.65%
• 6M: 6.16%
• 1Y: 6.83%
• 3Y*: 1.40%
• 5Y*: -0.97%
• 10Y*: 7.05%

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

FLDZ vs. MOO - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
FLDZ RiverNorth Patriot ETF	5.89%	6.66%	15.99%	12.15%	-12.07%
MOO VanEck Agribusiness ETF	5.65%	15.61%	-12.43%	-8.57%	-8.10%

Correlation

The correlation between FLDZ and MOO is 0.55, 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	0.55
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.65
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 3, 2022	0.72

The correlation between FLDZ and MOO shifts across timeframes, from 0.55 (1 year) to 0.72 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FLDZ vs. MOO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FLDZ	MOO
Financial Services	15.6%	-
Consumer Cyclical	14.4%	-
Industrials	13.1%	21.7%
Healthcare	12.3%	15.3%
Utilities	11.6%	-
Energy	10.8%	-
Real Estate	8.3%	-
Consumer Defensive	4.9%	37.8%
Communication Services	4.0%	-
Technology	2.8%	-
Basic Materials	1.6%	25.2%

Return for Risk

FLDZ vs. MOO — 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

MOO

MOO Risk / Return Rank: 16
MOO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 16
MOO Sortino Ratio Rank: 15
MOO Omega Ratio Rank: 14
MOO Calmar Ratio Rank: 16
MOO Martin Ratio Rank: 17

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. MOO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for RiverNorth Patriot ETF (FLDZ) and VanEck Agribusiness ETF (MOO). 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	MOO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.82	0.49	+0.34
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.25	0.79	+0.46
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.15	1.09	+0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.51	0.64	+0.87
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.56	1.74	+2.82

FLDZ vs. MOO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLDZ Sharpe Ratio is 0.82, which is higher than the MOO Sharpe Ratio of 0.49. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLDZ and MOO, 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. MOO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLDZ drawdown since its inception was -19.54%, smaller than the maximum MOO drawdown of -69.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLDZ and MOO.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLDZ	MOO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.54%	-69.53%	+49.99%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.25%	-10.75%	+4.50%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.43%	-26.83%	+9.40%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-39.52%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-39.52%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.06%	-20.84%	+19.78%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.92%	-16.97%	+11.05%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.06%	3.94%	-1.88%

Volatility

FLDZ vs. MOO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for RiverNorth Patriot ETF (FLDZ) is 2.83%, while VanEck Agribusiness ETF (MOO) has a volatility of 3.35%. This indicates that FLDZ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than MOO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FLDZ	MOO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.83%	3.35%	-0.52%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.84%	10.82%	-2.98%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.44%	14.08%	-2.64%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.86%	17.12%	-0.26%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.86%	18.20%	-1.34%

FLDZ vs. MOO - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLDZ has a 0.77% expense ratio, which is higher than MOO's 0.55% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLDZ vs. MOO - Dividend Comparison

FLDZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.45%, less than MOO's 2.34% 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%
MOO VanEck Agribusiness ETF	2.34%	2.47%	3.41%	2.93%	2.15%	1.17%	1.10%	1.26%	1.69%	1.44%	2.14%	2.89%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FLDZ and MOO in my portfolio?

FLDZ and MOO have a correlation of 0.55, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FLDZ or MOO?

MOO has higher volatility (3.35%) compared to FLDZ (2.83%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLDZ dropped -19.54% vs MOO's -69.53%.

Which ETF is better, FLDZ or MOO?

On 3-year performance, FLDZ leads with 13.52% vs 1.40% for MOO. On fees, MOO is cheaper at 0.55% 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 MOO?

Over the 3-year period, FLDZ has performed better with a 13.52% return vs 1.40%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLDZ or MOO?

MOO is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 0.77% for FLDZ.

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

MOO has the higher dividend yield at 2.34%, compared with 1.45% for FLDZ.

What is the main difference between FLDZ and MOO?

FLDZ is categorized as Mid Cap Blend Equities, while MOO is Large Cap Blend Equities. They also come from different issuers: RiverNorth and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.77% for FLDZ and 0.55% for MOO.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FLDZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.82 vs 0.49), 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.