FSCS vs. FLDZ

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

FSCS (First Trust SMID Capital Strength ETF) and FLDZ (RiverNorth Patriot ETF) are both Mid Cap Blend Equities funds. FSCS is passively managed, while FLDZ is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, FSCS returned 9.17%/yr vs 9.54%/yr for FLDZ. Their correlation of 0.88 means they have usually moved in the same direction. FSCS charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.77%/yr for FLDZ.

Performance

FSCS vs. FLDZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust SMID Capital Strength ETF (FSCS) and RiverNorth Patriot ETF (FLDZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FSCS achieves a 5.33% return, which is significantly higher than FLDZ's 3.40% return.

FSCS

• 1D: -0.10%
• 1M: 0.73%
• 6M: 2.50%
• YTD: 5.33%
• 1Y: 6.10%
• 3Y*: 9.17%
• 5Y*: 6.49%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 8.87%

FLDZ

• 1D: 0.83%
• 1M: -4.86%
• 6M: 1.59%
• YTD: 3.40%
• 1Y: 6.02%
• 3Y*: 9.54%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 5.21%

*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)
FLDZ RiverNorth Patriot ETF	$3.19K	$2.29K	$1.72K
FSCS First Trust SMID Capital Strength ETF	$142.63K	$149.23K	$210.39K

FSCS vs. FLDZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
FSCS First Trust SMID Capital Strength ETF	5.33%	1.77%	14.98%	16.81%	-9.11%
FLDZ RiverNorth Patriot ETF	3.40%	6.66%	15.99%	12.15%	-12.07%

Correlation

The correlation between FSCS and FLDZ is 0.70, 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.	0.70
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.85
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 3, 2022	0.88

The correlation between FSCS and FLDZ shifts across timeframes, from 0.70 (1 year) to 0.88 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

FSCS vs. FLDZ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FSCS	FLDZ
Financial Services	28.7%	15.5%
Industrials	26.7%	12.3%
Consumer Defensive	13.9%	4.7%
Consumer Cyclical	8.9%	14.6%
Basic Materials	5.9%	1.5%
Healthcare	5.9%	13.2%
Technology	4.0%	3.4%
Communication Services	2.0%	4.2%
Energy	2.0%	10.3%
Real Estate	1.0%	8.7%
Utilities	1.0%	11.6%

Return for Risk

FSCS vs. FLDZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

FSCS

FSCS Risk / Return Rank: 21
FSCS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 21
FSCS Sortino Ratio Rank: 20
FSCS Omega Ratio Rank: 19
FSCS Calmar Ratio Rank: 23
FSCS Martin Ratio Rank: 21

FLDZ

FLDZ Risk / Return Rank: 21
FLDZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 20
FLDZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 18
FLDZ Omega Ratio Rank: 19
FLDZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 23
FLDZ Martin Ratio Rank: 26

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.

FSCS vs. FLDZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust SMID Capital Strength ETF (FSCS) and RiverNorth Patriot ETF (FLDZ). 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.

	FSCS	FLDZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.41	0.38	+0.03
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.71	0.61	+0.10
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.08	1.08	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.66	0.66	0.00
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.37	2.09	-0.72

FSCS vs. FLDZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FSCS Sharpe Ratio is 0.41, which is comparable to the FLDZ Sharpe Ratio of 0.38. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FSCS and FLDZ, 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

FSCS vs. FLDZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FSCS drawdown since its inception was -43.57%, which is greater than FLDZ's maximum drawdown of -19.54%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FSCS and FLDZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	FSCS	FLDZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-43.57%	-19.54%	-24.03%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.81%	-7.78%	-0.03%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.55%	-17.43%	-2.12%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.25%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.12%	-4.86%	+2.74%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.93%	-5.85%	-0.08%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.74%	2.45%	+1.29%

Volatility

FSCS vs. FLDZ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for First Trust SMID Capital Strength ETF (FSCS) is 4.22%, while RiverNorth Patriot ETF (FLDZ) has a volatility of 7.82%. This indicates that FSCS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FLDZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FSCS	FLDZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.22%	7.82%	-3.60%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.76%	10.62%	-1.86%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.55%	13.39%	-0.84%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.98%	17.04%	+0.94%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.08%	17.04%	+4.04%

FSCS vs. FLDZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

FSCS has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than FLDZ's 0.77% expense ratio.

Dividends

FSCS vs. FLDZ - Dividend Comparison

FSCS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.98%, less than FLDZ's 1.49% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FLDZ RiverNorth Patriot ETF	1.49%	1.54%	1.17%	1.39%	1.52%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
FSCS First Trust SMID Capital Strength ETF	0.98%	0.75%	1.12%	1.47%	1.71%	1.21%	1.33%	1.68%	1.67%	0.67%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FSCS and FLDZ in my portfolio?

FSCS and FLDZ have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FSCS or FLDZ?

FLDZ has higher volatility (7.82%) compared to FSCS (4.22%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FSCS dropped -43.57% vs FLDZ's -19.54%.

Which ETF is better, FSCS or FLDZ?

On 3-year performance, FLDZ leads with 9.54% vs 9.17% for FSCS. On fees, FSCS is cheaper at 0.60% per year. On volatility, FSCS has been the lower-risk option at 4.22%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FSCS or FLDZ?

Over the 3-year period, FLDZ has performed better with a 9.54% return vs 9.17%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FSCS or FLDZ?

FSCS is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.77% for FLDZ.

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

FLDZ has the higher dividend yield at 1.49%, compared with 0.98% for FSCS.

What is the main difference between FSCS and FLDZ?

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and RiverNorth. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for FSCS and 0.77% for FLDZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FSCS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.41 vs 0.38), 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.