LEXI vs. RHRX

Last updated Jun 6, 2026

LEXI (Alexis Practical Tactical ETF) and RHRX (RH Tactical Rotation ETF) are both Tactical Allocation funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, LEXI returned 19.54%/yr vs 21.49%/yr for RHRX. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. LEXI charges 1.00%/yr vs 1.36%/yr for RHRX.

Performance

LEXI vs. RHRX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Alexis Practical Tactical ETF (LEXI) and RH Tactical Rotation ETF (RHRX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LEXI achieves a 11.23% return, which is significantly lower than RHRX's 17.33% return.

LEXI

• 1D: -2.01%
• 1M: 0.91%
• YTD: 11.23%
• 6M: 11.51%
• 1Y: 27.43%
• 3Y*: 19.54%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RHRX

• 1D: -3.22%
• 1M: 0.09%
• YTD: 17.33%
• 6M: 16.55%
• 1Y: 37.12%
• 3Y*: 21.49%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

LEXI vs. RHRX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
LEXI Alexis Practical Tactical ETF	11.23%	19.23%	16.51%	16.58%	-14.36%	0.86%
RHRX RH Tactical Rotation ETF	17.33%	16.70%	22.21%	10.28%	-20.05%	1.33%

Correlation

The correlation between LEXI and RHRX is 0.88, 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	0.88
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.85
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 9, 2021	0.85

The correlation between LEXI and RHRX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.88 - a consistent structural relationship.

LEXI vs. RHRX - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LEXI	RHRX
Technology	35.8%	39.3%
Industrials	13.9%	17.4%
Financial Services	12.8%	4.9%
Consumer Cyclical	9.8%	6.7%
Communication Services	7.3%	6.3%
Healthcare	6.6%	3.3%
Basic Materials	5.0%	15.8%
Consumer Defensive	3.2%	1.5%
Utilities	2.1%	3.3%
Energy	2.1%	0.9%
Real Estate	1.5%	0.6%

Return for Risk

LEXI vs. RHRX — Risk / Return Rank

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

LEXI

LEXI Risk / Return Rank: 81
LEXI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
LEXI Sortino Ratio Rank: 84
LEXI Omega Ratio Rank: 82
LEXI Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
LEXI Martin Ratio Rank: 84

RHRX

RHRX Risk / Return Rank: 88
RHRX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 87
RHRX Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
RHRX Omega Ratio Rank: 84
RHRX Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
RHRX Martin Ratio Rank: 92

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.

LEXI vs. RHRX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Alexis Practical Tactical ETF (LEXI) and RH Tactical Rotation ETF (RHRX). 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.

	LEXI	RHRX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.54	2.75	-0.20
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.58	3.64	-0.06
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.47	1.48	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.39	5.46	-2.07
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.32	21.23	-4.91
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LEXI vs. RHRX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LEXI Sharpe Ratio is 2.54, which is comparable to the RHRX Sharpe Ratio of 2.75. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LEXI and RHRX, 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

	LEXI	RHRX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.54	2.75	-0.20
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.75	0.48	+0.27

Drawdowns

LEXI vs. RHRX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LEXI drawdown since its inception was -22.01%, smaller than the maximum RHRX drawdown of -25.33%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LEXI and RHRX.

Drawdown Indicators

	LEXI	RHRX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.01%	-25.33%	+3.32%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.12%	-6.83%	-1.29%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.94%	-21.90%	+5.96%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.01%	-3.60%	+1.59%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.18%	-8.94%	+3.76%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.69%	1.75%	-0.06%

Volatility

LEXI vs. RHRX - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Alexis Practical Tactical ETF (LEXI) is 3.37%, while RH Tactical Rotation ETF (RHRX) has a volatility of 5.14%. This indicates that LEXI experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RHRX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LEXI	RHRX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.37%	5.14%	-1.77%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.05%	10.31%	-1.26%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.85%	13.60%	-2.75%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.66%	19.08%	-4.42%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.66%	19.08%	-4.42%

LEXI vs. RHRX - Expense Ratio Comparison

LEXI has a 1.00% expense ratio, which is lower than RHRX's 1.36% expense ratio.

Dividends

LEXI vs. RHRX - Dividend Comparison

LEXI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.85%, while RHRX has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
LEXI Alexis Practical Tactical ETF	0.85%	0.94%	2.17%	1.34%	0.95%	0.23%
RHRX RH Tactical Rotation ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LEXI and RHRX in my portfolio?

LEXI and RHRX have a correlation of 0.88, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LEXI or RHRX?

RHRX has higher volatility (5.14%) compared to LEXI (3.37%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LEXI dropped -22.01% vs RHRX's -25.33%.

Which ETF is better, LEXI or RHRX?

On 3-year performance, RHRX leads with 21.49% vs 19.54% for LEXI. On fees, LEXI is cheaper at 1.00% per year. On volatility, LEXI has been the lower-risk option at 3.37%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LEXI or RHRX?

Over the 3-year period, RHRX has performed better with a 21.49% return vs 19.54%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LEXI or RHRX?

LEXI is cheaper with a 1.00% expense ratio, compared with 1.36% for RHRX.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, LEXI or RHRX?

LEXI has the higher dividend yield at 0.85%, compared with 0.00% for RHRX.

What is the main difference between LEXI and RHRX?

They also come from different issuers: Alexis and Adaptive. Their fees differ too: 1.00% for LEXI and 1.36% for RHRX.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RHRX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.75 vs 2.54), 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.