FORH vs. CAOS

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FORH (Formidable ETF) and CAOS (Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FORH is a Mid Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by Formidable, while CAOS is a Options Trading fund actively managed by Alpha Architect. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, FORH returned 4.31%/yr vs 4.26%/yr for CAOS. At a correlation of -0.05, they often move in opposite directions. FORH charges 1.19%/yr vs 0.63%/yr for CAOS.

Performance

FORH vs. CAOS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Formidable ETF (FORH) and Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FORH achieves a 4.39% return, which is significantly higher than CAOS's 0.82% return.

FORH

• 1D: -1.48%
• 1M: -1.56%
• YTD: 4.39%
• 6M: 1.81%
• 1Y: 12.85%
• 3Y*: 4.31%
• 5Y*: 1.34%
• 10Y*: —

CAOS

• 1D: 0.12%
• 1M: -0.09%
• YTD: 0.82%
• 6M: 0.69%
• 1Y: 1.88%
• 3Y*: 4.26%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FORH vs. CAOS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FORH Formidable ETF	4.39%	16.27%	-5.63%	-5.38%
CAOS Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF	0.82%	2.55%	5.33%	7.97%

Correlation

The correlation between FORH and CAOS is -0.20, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.20
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.07
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 7, 2023	-0.05

The correlation between FORH and CAOS shifts across timeframes, from -0.20 (1 year) to -0.05 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FORH vs. CAOS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FORH	CAOS
Industrials	29.2%	8.5%
Basic Materials	13.5%	1.9%
Technology	12.8%	33.1%
Healthcare	12.7%	9.6%
Energy	9.4%	4.1%
Utilities	7.2%	2.6%
Consumer Cyclical	6.1%	10.0%
Consumer Defensive	2.6%	5.4%
Real Estate	2.5%	2.0%
Financial Services	2.3%	12.4%
Communication Services	1.8%	10.4%

Return for Risk

FORH vs. CAOS — Risk / Return Rank

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

FORH

FORH Risk / Return Rank: 22
FORH Sharpe Ratio Rank: 24
FORH Sortino Ratio Rank: 23
FORH Omega Ratio Rank: 23
FORH Calmar Ratio Rank: 23
FORH Martin Ratio Rank: 18

CAOS

CAOS Risk / Return Rank: 40
CAOS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 34
CAOS Sortino Ratio Rank: 37
CAOS Omega Ratio Rank: 39
CAOS Calmar Ratio Rank: 49
CAOS Martin Ratio Rank: 39

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.

FORH vs. CAOS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Formidable ETF (FORH) and Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS). 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.

	FORH	CAOS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.82	1.24	-0.42
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.21	1.98	-0.77
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.15	1.26	-0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.01	2.49	-1.48
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.00	6.22	-4.22
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FORH vs. CAOS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FORH Sharpe Ratio is 0.82, which is lower than the CAOS Sharpe Ratio of 1.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FORH and CAOS, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	FORH	CAOS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.82	1.24	-0.42
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.08	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.14	1.21	-1.07

Drawdowns

FORH vs. CAOS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FORH drawdown since its inception was -20.73%, which is greater than CAOS's maximum drawdown of -3.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FORH and CAOS.

Drawdown Indicators

	FORH	CAOS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.73%	-3.60%	-17.13%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.80%	-0.76%	-12.04%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.42%	-3.60%	-15.82%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-20.73%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-6.77%	-1.07%	-5.70%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.98%	-0.90%	-7.08%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.43%	0.30%	+6.13%

Volatility

FORH vs. CAOS - Volatility Comparison

Formidable ETF (FORH) has a higher volatility of 4.15% compared to Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS) at 0.26%. This indicates that FORH's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CAOS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FORH	CAOS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.15%	0.26%	+3.89%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.10%	1.03%	+9.07%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.78%	1.52%	+14.26%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.02%	4.26%	+11.76%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.03%	4.26%	+11.77%

FORH vs. CAOS - Expense Ratio Comparison

FORH has a 1.19% expense ratio, which is higher than CAOS's 0.63% expense ratio.

Dividends

FORH vs. CAOS - Dividend Comparison

FORH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.75%, while CAOS has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
CAOS Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FORH Formidable ETF	1.75%	1.82%	0.00%	3.88%	3.72%	0.69%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FORH and CAOS in my portfolio?

FORH and CAOS have a correlation of -0.20, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FORH or CAOS?

FORH has higher volatility (4.15%) compared to CAOS (0.26%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FORH dropped -20.73% vs CAOS's -3.60%.

Which ETF is better, FORH or CAOS?

On 3-year performance, FORH leads with 4.31% vs 4.26% for CAOS. On fees, CAOS is cheaper at 0.63% per year. On volatility, CAOS has been the lower-risk option at 0.26%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FORH or CAOS?

Over the 3-year period, FORH has performed better with a 4.31% return vs 4.26%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FORH or CAOS?

CAOS is cheaper with a 0.63% expense ratio, compared with 1.19% for FORH.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FORH or CAOS?

FORH has the higher dividend yield at 1.75%, compared with 0.00% for CAOS.

What is the main difference between FORH and CAOS?

FORH is categorized as Mid Cap Blend Equities, while CAOS is Options Trading. They also come from different issuers: Formidable and Alpha Architect. Their fees differ too: 1.19% for FORH and 0.63% for CAOS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CAOS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.24 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.