FLQL vs. RFDA

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

FLQL (Franklin LibertyQ U.S. Equity ETF) and RFDA (RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. FLQL is passively managed, while RFDA is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, FLQL returned 14.02%/yr vs 12.84%/yr for RFDA. Their correlation of 0.84 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FLQL charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.52%/yr for RFDA.

Performance

FLQL vs. RFDA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Franklin LibertyQ U.S. Equity ETF (FLQL) 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, FLQL achieves a 12.45% return, which is significantly lower than RFDA's 13.64% return.

FLQL

• 1D: -0.93%
• 1M: 0.56%
• 6M: 9.66%
• YTD: 12.45%
• 1Y: 23.98%
• 3Y*: 21.29%
• 5Y*: 14.02%
• 10Y*: —

RFDA

• 1D: 0.20%
• 1M: 1.43%
• 6M: 12.80%
• YTD: 13.64%
• 1Y: 24.28%
• 3Y*: 18.25%
• 5Y*: 12.84%
• 10Y*: 13.49%

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

FLQL vs. RFDA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FLQL Franklin LibertyQ U.S. Equity ETF	12.45%	19.64%	24.33%	23.58%	-14.83%	26.58%	10.67%	29.09%	-2.79%	15.04%
RFDA RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF	13.64%	16.42%	20.12%	16.98%	-8.58%	25.94%	11.26%	27.15%	-9.27%	14.05%

Correlation

The correlation between FLQL and RFDA is 0.74, 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	0.74
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.84
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.87
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 28, 2017	0.84

The correlation between FLQL and RFDA shifts across timeframes, from 0.74 (1 year) to 0.87 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FLQL vs. RFDA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FLQL	RFDA
Technology	37.0%	21.1%
Communication Services	11.7%	8.3%
Consumer Cyclical	11.3%	7.4%
Healthcare	10.1%	9.7%
Financial Services	9.6%	14.4%
Industrials	9.5%	8.6%
Consumer Defensive	4.1%	7.0%
Real Estate	2.7%	4.9%
Basic Materials	1.7%	1.9%
Utilities	1.4%	4.8%
Energy	0.9%	11.7%

Return for Risk

FLQL vs. RFDA — Risk / Return Rank

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

FLQL

FLQL Risk / Return Rank: 71
FLQL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
FLQL Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
FLQL Omega Ratio Rank: 69
FLQL Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
FLQL Martin Ratio Rank: 80

RFDA

RFDA Risk / Return Rank: 86
RFDA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
RFDA Sortino Ratio Rank: 83
RFDA Omega Ratio Rank: 83
RFDA Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
RFDA 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.

FLQL vs. RFDA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin LibertyQ U.S. Equity ETF (FLQL) 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.

	FLQL	RFDA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.77	2.11	-0.34
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.51	2.91	-0.41
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.39	-0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.66	4.48	-1.82
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.14	15.88	-3.74

FLQL vs. RFDA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FLQL Sharpe Ratio is 1.77, which is comparable to the RFDA Sharpe Ratio of 2.11. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FLQL 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

FLQL vs. RFDA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FLQL drawdown since its inception was -33.64%, roughly equal to the maximum RFDA drawdown of -34.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FLQL and RFDA.

Drawdown Indicators

	FLQL	RFDA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.64%	-34.60%	+0.96%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.05%	-5.45%	-3.60%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.32%	-19.35%	+0.03%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.41%	-19.35%	-2.06%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-34.60%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.93%	0.00%	-0.93%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.01%	-3.72%	-0.29%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.98%	1.53%	+0.45%

Volatility

FLQL vs. RFDA - Volatility Comparison

Franklin LibertyQ U.S. Equity ETF (FLQL) has a higher volatility of 4.50% compared to RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF (RFDA) at 2.41%. This indicates that FLQL'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

	FLQL	RFDA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.50%	2.41%	+2.09%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.14%	8.76%	+2.38%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.63%	11.59%	+2.04%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.25%	15.74%	+0.51%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.49%	16.84%	+0.65%

FLQL vs. RFDA - Expense Ratio Comparison

FLQL has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than RFDA's 0.52% expense ratio.

Dividends

FLQL vs. RFDA - Dividend Comparison

FLQL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.03%, less than RFDA's 1.76% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
FLQL Franklin LibertyQ U.S. Equity ETF	1.03%	1.10%	1.13%	1.50%	2.07%	1.81%	1.99%	1.78%	1.82%	1.22%	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 FLQL and RFDA in my portfolio?

FLQL and RFDA have a correlation of 0.74, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FLQL or RFDA?

FLQL has higher volatility (4.50%) compared to RFDA (2.41%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FLQL dropped -33.64% vs RFDA's -34.60%.

Which ETF is better, FLQL or RFDA?

On 5-year performance, FLQL leads with 14.02% vs 12.84% for RFDA. On fees, FLQL is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, RFDA has been the lower-risk option at 2.41%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FLQL or RFDA?

Over the 5-year period, FLQL has performed better with a 14.02% return vs 12.84%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FLQL or RFDA?

FLQL is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.52% for RFDA.

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

RFDA has the higher dividend yield at 1.76%, compared with 1.03% for FLQL.

What is the main difference between FLQL and RFDA?

They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and SS&C. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for FLQL and 0.52% for RFDA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RFDA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.11 vs 1.77), 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.