LGCF vs. CAOS

Last updated Jun 6, 2026

LGCF (Themes US Cash Flow Champions ETF) and CAOS (Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - LGCF is a Large Cap Value Equities fund tracking the Solactive US Cash Flow Champions Index, while CAOS is a Options Trading fund actively managed by Alpha Architect. LGCF is passively managed, while CAOS is actively managed. Over the past year, LGCF returned 18.10% vs 1.94% for CAOS. At a correlation of -0.21, they often move in opposite directions. LGCF charges 0.29%/yr vs 0.63%/yr for CAOS.

Performance

LGCF vs. CAOS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Themes US Cash Flow Champions ETF (LGCF) and Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LGCF achieves a 4.45% return, which is significantly higher than CAOS's 0.90% return.

LGCF

• 1D: -0.82%
• 1M: 0.95%
• YTD: 4.45%
• 6M: 5.09%
• 1Y: 18.10%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CAOS

• 1D: 0.12%
• 1M: 0.02%
• YTD: 0.90%
• 6M: 0.76%
• 1Y: 1.94%
• 3Y*: 4.27%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

LGCF vs. CAOS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
LGCF Themes US Cash Flow Champions ETF	4.45%	15.71%	17.65%	2.14%
CAOS Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF	0.90%	2.55%	5.33%	0.20%

Correlation

The correlation between LGCF and CAOS is -0.23, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.23
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 14, 2023	-0.21

LGCF vs. CAOS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LGCF	CAOS
Financial Services	36.2%	12.4%
Energy	21.7%	4.1%
Healthcare	17.3%	9.6%
Technology	8.5%	33.1%
Consumer Cyclical	7.6%	10.0%
Consumer Defensive	2.9%	5.4%
Basic Materials	2.3%	1.9%
Communication Services	2.3%	10.4%
Industrials	1.2%	8.5%
Real Estate	-	2.0%
Utilities	-	2.6%

Return for Risk

LGCF vs. CAOS — Risk / Return Rank

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

LGCF

LGCF Risk / Return Rank: 51
LGCF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
LGCF Sortino Ratio Rank: 43
LGCF Omega Ratio Rank: 44
LGCF Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
LGCF Martin Ratio Rank: 58

CAOS

CAOS Risk / Return Rank: 43
CAOS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 37
CAOS Sortino Ratio Rank: 41
CAOS Omega Ratio Rank: 42
CAOS Calmar Ratio Rank: 54
CAOS Martin Ratio Rank: 42

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.

LGCF vs. CAOS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Themes US Cash Flow Champions ETF (LGCF) and Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS). 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.

	LGCF	CAOS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.41	1.27	+0.14
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.98	2.03	-0.05
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.26	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.16	2.57	+0.60
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.53	6.37	+3.16
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

LGCF vs. CAOS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LGCF Sharpe Ratio is 1.41, which is comparable to the CAOS Sharpe Ratio of 1.27. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LGCF and CAOS, 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

	LGCF	CAOS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.41	1.27	+0.14
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.08	1.21	-0.13

Drawdowns

LGCF vs. CAOS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LGCF drawdown since its inception was -16.67%, which is greater than CAOS's maximum drawdown of -3.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LGCF and CAOS.

Drawdown Indicators

	LGCF	CAOS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.67%	-3.60%	-13.07%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.75%	-0.76%	-4.99%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-3.60%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.82%	-0.99%	+0.17%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.22%	-0.90%	-1.32%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.90%	0.30%	+1.60%

Volatility

LGCF vs. CAOS - Volatility Comparison

Themes US Cash Flow Champions ETF (LGCF) has a higher volatility of 2.92% compared to Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS) at 0.27%. This indicates that LGCF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CAOS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LGCF	CAOS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.92%	0.27%	+2.65%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.11%	1.03%	+9.08%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.86%	1.53%	+11.33%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.16%	4.25%	+10.91%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.16%	4.25%	+10.91%

LGCF vs. CAOS - Expense Ratio Comparison

LGCF has a 0.29% expense ratio, which is lower than CAOS's 0.63% expense ratio.

Dividends

LGCF vs. CAOS - Dividend Comparison

LGCF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.76%, while CAOS has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
CAOS Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
LGCF Themes US Cash Flow Champions ETF	1.76%	1.84%	1.19%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LGCF and CAOS in my portfolio?

LGCF and CAOS have a correlation of -0.23, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LGCF or CAOS?

LGCF has higher volatility (2.92%) compared to CAOS (0.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LGCF dropped -16.67% vs CAOS's -3.60%.

Which ETF is better, LGCF or CAOS?

On 1-year performance, LGCF leads with 18.10% vs 1.94% for CAOS. On fees, LGCF is cheaper at 0.29% per year. On volatility, CAOS has been the lower-risk option at 0.27%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LGCF or CAOS?

Over the 1-year period, LGCF has performed better with a 18.10% return vs 1.94%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LGCF or CAOS?

LGCF is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.63% for CAOS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, LGCF or CAOS?

LGCF has the higher dividend yield at 1.76%, compared with 0.00% for CAOS.

What is the main difference between LGCF and CAOS?

LGCF is categorized as Large Cap Value Equities, while CAOS is Options Trading. They also come from different issuers: Themes and Alpha Architect. Their fees differ too: 0.29% for LGCF and 0.63% for CAOS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

LGCF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.41 vs 1.27), 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.