GFGF vs. EQL

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

GFGF (Guru Favorite Stocks ETF) and EQL (ALPS Equal Sector Weight ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. GFGF is actively managed, while EQL is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, GFGF returned 17.26%/yr vs 15.68%/yr for EQL. Their 0.77 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. GFGF charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.27%/yr for EQL.

Performance

GFGF vs. EQL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Guru Favorite Stocks ETF (GFGF) and ALPS Equal Sector Weight ETF (EQL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GFGF achieves a 2.78% return, which is significantly lower than EQL's 11.79% return.

GFGF

• 1D: 1.18%
• 1M: 0.77%
• 6M: 3.26%
• YTD: 2.78%
• 1Y: 12.91%
• 3Y*: 17.26%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 8.58%

EQL

• 1D: 0.98%
• 1M: 1.30%
• 6M: 7.57%
• YTD: 11.79%
• 1Y: 19.50%
• 3Y*: 15.68%
• 5Y*: 10.87%
• 10Y*: 12.40%
• ALL TIME*: 13.54%

*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)
EQL ALPS Equal Sector Weight ETF	$3.24M	$2.89M	$2.73M
GFGF Guru Favorite Stocks ETF	$419.66K	$205.13K	$80.27K

GFGF vs. EQL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
GFGF Guru Favorite Stocks ETF	2.78%	13.11%	26.12%	24.03%	-20.32%	1.03%
EQL ALPS Equal Sector Weight ETF	11.79%	13.09%	16.44%	16.87%	-10.72%	2.19%

Correlation

The correlation between GFGF and EQL is 0.65, 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.	0.65
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.73
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 16, 2021	0.77

The correlation between GFGF and EQL shifts across timeframes, from 0.65 (1 year) to 0.77 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

GFGF vs. EQL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GFGF	EQL
Technology	35.2%	10.2%
Financial Services	31.4%	9.1%
Healthcare	14.8%	9.4%
Communication Services	10.2%	8.9%
Consumer Cyclical	6.5%	9.6%
Consumer Defensive	3.1%	8.8%
Industrials	2.0%	9.3%
Real Estate	2.0%	8.7%
Basic Materials	-	8.0%
Energy	-	8.7%
Utilities	-	9.4%

Return for Risk

GFGF vs. EQL — Risk / Return Rank

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

GFGF

GFGF Risk / Return Rank: 34
GFGF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
GFGF Sortino Ratio Rank: 37
GFGF Omega Ratio Rank: 36
GFGF Calmar Ratio Rank: 26
GFGF Martin Ratio Rank: 31

EQL

EQL Risk / Return Rank: 85
EQL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 86
EQL Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
EQL Omega Ratio Rank: 85
EQL Calmar Ratio Rank: 83
EQL Martin Ratio Rank: 85

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.

GFGF vs. EQL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Guru Favorite Stocks ETF (GFGF) and ALPS Equal Sector Weight ETF (EQL). 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.

	GFGF	EQL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.01	2.07	-1.07
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.44	2.89	-1.45
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.38	-0.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.85	3.16	-2.31
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.87	12.39	-9.51

GFGF vs. EQL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GFGF Sharpe Ratio is 1.01, which is lower than the EQL Sharpe Ratio of 2.07. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GFGF and EQL, 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

GFGF vs. EQL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GFGF drawdown since its inception was -27.98%, smaller than the maximum EQL drawdown of -35.65%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GFGF and EQL.

Drawdown Indicators

	GFGF	EQL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-27.98%	-35.65%	+7.67%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.22%	-6.19%	-9.03%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.60%	-15.07%	-0.53%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-19.24%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-35.65%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.04%	-3.23%	-4.81%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.50%	1.58%	+2.92%

Volatility

GFGF vs. EQL - Volatility Comparison

Guru Favorite Stocks ETF (GFGF) has a higher volatility of 3.61% compared to ALPS Equal Sector Weight ETF (EQL) at 2.29%. This indicates that GFGF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EQL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GFGF	EQL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.61%	2.29%	+1.32%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.15%	7.09%	+3.06%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.92%	9.47%	+3.45%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.93%	14.52%	+4.41%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.93%	16.49%	+2.44%

GFGF vs. EQL - Expense Ratio Comparison

GFGF has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than EQL's 0.27% expense ratio.

Dividends

GFGF vs. EQL - Dividend Comparison

GFGF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.21%, less than EQL's 1.34% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EQL ALPS Equal Sector Weight ETF	1.34%	1.73%	1.78%	1.96%	2.14%	1.69%	2.29%	1.95%	2.39%	1.97%	2.89%	2.07%
GFGF Guru Favorite Stocks ETF	0.21%	0.21%	0.10%	0.08%	0.42%	0.01%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GFGF and EQL in my portfolio?

GFGF and EQL have a correlation of 0.65, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GFGF or EQL?

GFGF has higher volatility (3.61%) compared to EQL (2.29%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GFGF dropped -27.98% vs EQL's -35.65%.

Which ETF is better, GFGF or EQL?

On 3-year performance, GFGF leads with 17.26% vs 15.68% for EQL. On fees, EQL is cheaper at 0.27% per year. On volatility, EQL has been the lower-risk option at 2.29%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GFGF or EQL?

Over the 3-year period, GFGF has performed better with a 17.26% return vs 15.68%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GFGF or EQL?

EQL is cheaper with a 0.27% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for GFGF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GFGF or EQL?

EQL has the higher dividend yield at 1.34%, compared with 0.21% for GFGF.

What is the main difference between GFGF and EQL?

They also come from different issuers: GuruFocus and SS&C. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for GFGF and 0.27% for EQL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EQL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.07 vs 1.01), 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.