LITL vs. AFSC

Last updated Jul 1, 2026

LITL (Simplify Piper Sandler US Small-Cap PLUS Income ETF) and AFSC (abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF) are both Small Cap Blend Equities funds. Over the past year, LITL returned 26.54% vs 38.24% for AFSC. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. LITL charges 0.91%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for AFSC.

Performance

LITL vs. AFSC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Simplify Piper Sandler US Small-Cap PLUS Income ETF (LITL) and abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF (AFSC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LITL achieves a 17.72% return, which is significantly lower than AFSC's 29.10% return.

LITL

• 1D: 0.53%
• 1M: 9.16%
• YTD: 17.72%
• 6M: 16.76%
• 1Y: 26.54%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

AFSC

• 1D: 1.13%
• 1M: 10.65%
• YTD: 29.10%
• 6M: 26.76%
• 1Y: 38.24%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

LITL vs. AFSC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
LITL Simplify Piper Sandler US Small-Cap PLUS Income ETF	17.72%	18.93%
AFSC abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF	29.10%	16.99%

Correlation

The correlation between LITL and AFSC is 0.85, 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	0.85
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 29, 2025	0.85

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

Return for Risk

LITL vs. AFSC — Risk / Return Rank

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

LITL

LITL Risk / Return Rank: 52
LITL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 47
LITL Sortino Ratio Rank: 48
LITL Omega Ratio Rank: 44
LITL Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
LITL Martin Ratio Rank: 54

AFSC

AFSC Risk / Return Rank: 75
AFSC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
AFSC Sortino Ratio Rank: 73
AFSC Omega Ratio Rank: 64
AFSC Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
AFSC Martin Ratio Rank: 82

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.

LITL vs. AFSC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Simplify Piper Sandler US Small-Cap PLUS Income ETF (LITL) and abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF (AFSC). 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.

	LITL	AFSC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.43	2.02	-0.60
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.11	2.82	-0.71
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.33	-0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.86	3.73	-0.87
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.95	14.19	-6.24

LITL vs. AFSC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LITL Sharpe Ratio is 1.43, which is comparable to the AFSC Sharpe Ratio of 2.02. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LITL and AFSC, 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

LITL vs. AFSC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LITL drawdown since its inception was -9.32%, smaller than the maximum AFSC drawdown of -21.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LITL and AFSC.

Drawdown Indicators

	LITL	AFSC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.32%	-21.93%	+12.61%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.32%	-10.29%	+0.97%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.28%	-4.06%	+1.78%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.35%	2.70%	+0.65%

Volatility

LITL vs. AFSC - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Simplify Piper Sandler US Small-Cap PLUS Income ETF (LITL) is 4.21%, while abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF (AFSC) has a volatility of 5.35%. This indicates that LITL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than AFSC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LITL	AFSC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.21%	5.35%	-1.14%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.41%	14.69%	-2.28%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.72%	18.98%	-0.26%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.69%	22.43%	-3.74%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.69%	22.43%	-3.74%

LITL vs. AFSC - Expense Ratio Comparison

LITL has a 0.91% expense ratio, which is higher than AFSC's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

LITL vs. AFSC - Dividend Comparison

LITL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.48%, more than AFSC's 0.06% yield.

Position	TTM	2025
AFSC abrdn Focused U.S. Small Cap Active ETF	0.06%	0.08%
LITL Simplify Piper Sandler US Small-Cap PLUS Income ETF	1.48%	0.71%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LITL and AFSC in my portfolio?

LITL and AFSC have a correlation of 0.85, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LITL or AFSC?

AFSC has higher volatility (5.35%) compared to LITL (4.21%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LITL dropped -9.32% vs AFSC's -21.93%.

Which ETF is better, LITL or AFSC?

On 1-year performance, AFSC leads with 38.24% vs 26.54% for LITL. On fees, AFSC is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, LITL has been the lower-risk option at 4.21%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LITL or AFSC?

Over the 1-year period, AFSC has performed better with a 38.24% return vs 26.54%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LITL or AFSC?

AFSC is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.91% for LITL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, LITL or AFSC?

LITL has the higher dividend yield at 1.48%, compared with 0.06% for AFSC.

What is the main difference between LITL and AFSC?

They also come from different issuers: Simplify and Aberdeen. Their fees differ too: 0.91% for LITL and 0.65% for AFSC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

AFSC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.02 vs 1.43), 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.