FYC vs. RSMC

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FYC (First Trust Small Cap Growth AlphaDEX Fund) and RSMC (Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF) are both Small Cap Growth Equities funds. FYC is passively managed, while RSMC is actively managed. Over the past year, FYC returned 53.40% vs 10.70% for RSMC. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FYC charges 0.71%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for RSMC.

Performance

FYC vs. RSMC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Small Cap Growth AlphaDEX Fund (FYC) and Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF (RSMC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FYC achieves a 20.01% return, which is significantly higher than RSMC's 10.93% return.

FYC

• 1D: -0.91%
• 1M: 3.23%
• YTD: 20.01%
• 6M: 20.96%
• 1Y: 53.40%
• 3Y*: 26.12%
• 5Y*: 10.47%
• 10Y*: 14.30%

RSMC

• 1D: 0.59%
• 1M: 1.89%
• YTD: 10.93%
• 6M: 9.73%
• 1Y: 10.70%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FYC vs. RSMC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FYC First Trust Small Cap Growth AlphaDEX Fund	20.01%	24.24%	4.23%
RSMC Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF	10.93%	-1.02%	0.68%

Correlation

The correlation between FYC and RSMC is 0.84, 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	0.84
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 14, 2024	0.87

The correlation between FYC and RSMC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.84 to 0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

FYC vs. RSMC — Risk / Return Rank

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

FYC

FYC Risk / Return Rank: 79
FYC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
FYC Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
FYC Omega Ratio Rank: 68
FYC Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
FYC Martin Ratio Rank: 87

RSMC

RSMC Risk / Return Rank: 20
RSMC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 18
RSMC Sortino Ratio Rank: 19
RSMC Omega Ratio Rank: 18
RSMC Calmar Ratio Rank: 23
RSMC Martin Ratio Rank: 24

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.

FYC vs. RSMC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Small Cap Growth AlphaDEX Fund (FYC) and Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF (RSMC). 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.

	FYC	RSMC	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.55	0.63	+1.93
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.45	1.01	+2.44
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.41	1.12	+0.29
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.12	1.05	+4.07
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	18.64	3.14	+15.50
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FYC vs. RSMC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FYC Sharpe Ratio is 2.55, which is higher than the RSMC Sharpe Ratio of 0.63. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FYC and RSMC, 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

	FYC	RSMC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.55	0.63	+1.93
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.45	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.58	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.54	0.31	+0.22

Drawdowns

FYC vs. RSMC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FYC drawdown since its inception was -47.85%, which is greater than RSMC's maximum drawdown of -22.33%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FYC and RSMC.

Drawdown Indicators

	FYC	RSMC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-47.85%	-22.33%	-25.52%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.48%	-10.49%	+0.01%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-27.79%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-35.37%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-47.85%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.83%	-1.96%	+0.13%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.66%	-5.27%	-4.39%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.87%	3.50%	-0.63%

Volatility

FYC vs. RSMC - Volatility Comparison

First Trust Small Cap Growth AlphaDEX Fund (FYC) has a higher volatility of 5.53% compared to Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF (RSMC) at 4.86%. This indicates that FYC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RSMC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FYC	RSMC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.53%	4.86%	+0.67%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.99%	12.41%	+2.58%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	21.03%	17.16%	+3.87%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	23.62%	20.40%	+3.22%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.57%	20.40%	+4.17%

FYC vs. RSMC - Expense Ratio Comparison

FYC has a 0.71% expense ratio, which is lower than RSMC's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

FYC vs. RSMC - Dividend Comparison

FYC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.07%, while RSMC has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FYC First Trust Small Cap Growth AlphaDEX Fund	0.07%	0.08%	0.72%	0.58%	0.00%	0.63%	0.12%	0.39%	0.09%	0.10%	0.31%	0.21%
RSMC Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FYC and RSMC in my portfolio?

FYC and RSMC have a correlation of 0.84, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FYC or RSMC?

FYC has higher volatility (5.53%) compared to RSMC (4.86%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FYC dropped -47.85% vs RSMC's -22.33%.

Which ETF is better, FYC or RSMC?

On 1-year performance, FYC leads with 53.40% vs 10.70% for RSMC. On fees, FYC is cheaper at 0.71% per year. On volatility, RSMC has been the lower-risk option at 4.86%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FYC or RSMC?

Over the 1-year period, FYC has performed better with a 53.40% return vs 10.70%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FYC or RSMC?

FYC is cheaper with a 0.71% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for RSMC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FYC or RSMC?

FYC has the higher dividend yield at 0.07%, compared with 0.00% for RSMC.

What is the main difference between FYC and RSMC?

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Rockefeller. Their fees differ too: 0.71% for FYC and 0.75% for RSMC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FYC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.55 vs 0.63), 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.