LEAD vs. RFDA

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

LEAD (Siren DIVCON Leaders Dividend ETF) and RFDA (RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. LEAD is passively managed, while RFDA is actively managed. Over the past 10 years, LEAD returned 15.50%/yr vs 13.39%/yr for RFDA. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. LEAD charges 0.43%/yr vs 0.52%/yr for RFDA.

Performance

LEAD vs. RFDA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Siren DIVCON Leaders Dividend ETF (LEAD) 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, LEAD achieves a 17.81% return, which is significantly higher than RFDA's 10.78% return. Over the past 10 years, LEAD has outperformed RFDA with an annualized return of 15.50%, while RFDA has yielded a comparatively lower 13.39% annualized return.

LEAD

• 1D: 1.54%
• 1M: 3.85%
• YTD: 17.81%
• 6M: 15.63%
• 1Y: 27.87%
• 3Y*: 19.17%
• 5Y*: 12.31%
• 10Y*: 15.50%

RFDA

• 1D: 0.40%
• 1M: 0.39%
• YTD: 10.78%
• 6M: 9.60%
• 1Y: 25.57%
• 3Y*: 18.64%
• 5Y*: 12.83%
• 10Y*: 13.39%

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

LEAD vs. RFDA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
LEAD Siren DIVCON Leaders Dividend ETF	17.81%	15.52%	10.32%	26.25%	-18.16%	29.69%	23.41%	33.75%	-6.63%	24.89%
RFDA RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF	10.78%	16.42%	20.12%	16.98%	-8.58%	25.94%	11.26%	27.15%	-9.27%	19.86%

Correlation

The correlation between LEAD and RFDA is 0.71, 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	0.71
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.79
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.83
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.83
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 7, 2016	0.83

The correlation between LEAD and RFDA shifts across timeframes, from 0.71 (1 year) to 0.83 (10 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

LEAD vs. RFDA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LEAD	RFDA
Technology	38.4%	21.1%
Industrials	31.9%	8.6%
Financial Services	17.0%	14.4%
Healthcare	6.1%	9.7%
Consumer Defensive	3.8%	7.0%
Consumer Cyclical	1.4%	7.4%
Energy	1.4%	11.7%
Communication Services	0.1%	8.3%
Basic Materials	-	1.9%
Real Estate	-	4.9%
Utilities	-	4.8%

Return for Risk

LEAD vs. RFDA — Risk / Return Rank

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

LEAD

LEAD Risk / Return Rank: 67
LEAD Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
LEAD Sortino Ratio Rank: 60
LEAD Omega Ratio Rank: 58
LEAD Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
LEAD Martin Ratio Rank: 80

RFDA

RFDA Risk / Return Rank: 83
RFDA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 79
RFDA Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
RFDA Omega Ratio Rank: 79
RFDA Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
RFDA Martin Ratio Rank: 88

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.

LEAD vs. RFDA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Siren DIVCON Leaders Dividend ETF (LEAD) 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.

	LEAD	RFDA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.81	2.20	-0.39
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.48	3.04	-0.56
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.41	-0.09
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.24	4.72	-1.48
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.64	16.75	-3.11

LEAD vs. RFDA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LEAD Sharpe Ratio is 1.81, which is comparable to the RFDA Sharpe Ratio of 2.20. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LEAD 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

LEAD vs. RFDA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LEAD drawdown since its inception was -32.19%, smaller than the maximum RFDA drawdown of -34.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LEAD and RFDA.

Drawdown Indicators

	LEAD	RFDA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-32.19%	-34.60%	+2.41%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.65%	-5.45%	-3.20%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.86%	-19.35%	+1.49%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.93%	-19.35%	-5.58%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-32.19%	-34.60%	+2.41%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.80%	-1.66%	+0.86%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.40%	-3.73%	-0.67%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.05%	1.53%	+0.52%

Volatility

LEAD vs. RFDA - Volatility Comparison

Siren DIVCON Leaders Dividend ETF (LEAD) has a higher volatility of 6.67% compared to RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF (RFDA) at 3.23%. This indicates that LEAD'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

	LEAD	RFDA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.67%	3.23%	+3.44%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.56%	8.77%	+3.79%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.47%	11.69%	+3.78%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.54%	15.75%	+1.79%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.73%	16.86%	+1.87%

LEAD vs. RFDA - Expense Ratio Comparison

LEAD has a 0.43% expense ratio, which is lower than RFDA's 0.52% expense ratio.

Dividends

LEAD vs. RFDA - Dividend Comparison

LEAD's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.56%, less than RFDA's 1.80% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
LEAD Siren DIVCON Leaders Dividend ETF	0.56%	0.70%	0.93%	1.13%	1.27%	1.79%	0.81%	1.32%	1.38%	0.97%	1.38%
RFDA RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF	1.80%	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 LEAD and RFDA in my portfolio?

LEAD and RFDA have a correlation of 0.71, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LEAD or RFDA?

LEAD has higher volatility (6.67%) compared to RFDA (3.23%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LEAD dropped -32.19% vs RFDA's -34.60%.

Which ETF is better, LEAD or RFDA?

On 10-year performance, LEAD leads with 15.50% vs 13.39% for RFDA. On fees, LEAD is cheaper at 0.43% per year. On volatility, RFDA has been the lower-risk option at 3.23%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LEAD or RFDA?

Over the 10-year period, LEAD has performed better with a 15.50% return vs 13.39%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LEAD or RFDA?

LEAD is cheaper with a 0.43% expense ratio, compared with 0.52% for RFDA.

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

RFDA has the higher dividend yield at 1.80%, compared with 0.56% for LEAD.

What is the main difference between LEAD and RFDA?

They also come from different issuers: SRN Advisors and SS&C. Their fees differ too: 0.43% for LEAD and 0.52% for RFDA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RFDA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.20 vs 1.81), 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.