LSAF vs. FDLS

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

LSAF (LeaderShares AlphaFactor US Core Equity ETF) and FDLS (Inspire Fidelis Multi Factor ETF) are both Mid Cap Blend Equities funds - LSAF tracks the AlphaFactor US Core Equity Index while FDLS tracks the WI Fidelis Multi-Cap, Multi-Factor Index - Benchmark TR Gross. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, LSAF returned 19.66%/yr vs 20.22%/yr for FDLS. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. LSAF charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.76%/yr for FDLS.

Performance

LSAF vs. FDLS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in LeaderShares AlphaFactor US Core Equity ETF (LSAF) and Inspire Fidelis Multi Factor ETF (FDLS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LSAF achieves a 13.78% return, which is significantly lower than FDLS's 17.33% return.

LSAF

• 1D: -0.21%
• 1M: 3.98%
• YTD: 13.78%
• 6M: 11.61%
• 1Y: 25.54%
• 3Y*: 19.66%
• 5Y*: 10.56%
• 10Y*: —

FDLS

• 1D: 0.85%
• 1M: 3.39%
• YTD: 17.33%
• 6M: 15.05%
• 1Y: 37.24%
• 3Y*: 20.22%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

LSAF vs. FDLS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
LSAF LeaderShares AlphaFactor US Core Equity ETF	13.78%	12.01%	18.09%	15.48%	-0.32%
FDLS Inspire Fidelis Multi Factor ETF	17.33%	22.47%	7.41%	20.70%	-1.68%

Correlation

The correlation between LSAF and FDLS is 0.79, 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	0.79
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.86
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 24, 2022	0.87

The correlation between LSAF and FDLS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.79 to 0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.

LSAF vs. FDLS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	LSAF	FDLS
Consumer Cyclical	22.6%	3.7%
Technology	18.7%	23.9%
Financial Services	16.7%	13.9%
Industrials	14.5%	17.6%
Healthcare	9.3%	11.2%
Consumer Defensive	6.6%	4.8%
Energy	5.3%	6.7%
Basic Materials	3.2%	2.4%
Real Estate	2.1%	2.1%
Communication Services	1.0%	1.1%
Utilities	0.9%	1.7%

Return for Risk

LSAF vs. FDLS — Risk / Return Rank

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

LSAF

LSAF Risk / Return Rank: 62
LSAF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 54
LSAF Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
LSAF Omega Ratio Rank: 50
LSAF Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
LSAF Martin Ratio Rank: 71

FDLS

FDLS Risk / Return Rank: 73
FDLS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 71
FDLS Sortino Ratio Rank: 71
FDLS Omega Ratio Rank: 66
FDLS Calmar Ratio Rank: 78
FDLS Martin Ratio Rank: 81

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.

LSAF vs. FDLS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for LeaderShares AlphaFactor US Core Equity ETF (LSAF) and Inspire Fidelis Multi Factor ETF (FDLS). 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.

	LSAF	FDLS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.79	2.20	-0.41
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.63	3.06	-0.43
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.38	-0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.90	3.92	-0.02
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.78	15.47	-2.70

LSAF vs. FDLS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LSAF Sharpe Ratio is 1.79, which is comparable to the FDLS Sharpe Ratio of 2.20. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LSAF and FDLS, 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

LSAF vs. FDLS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LSAF drawdown since its inception was -41.67%, which is greater than FDLS's maximum drawdown of -23.32%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LSAF and FDLS.

Drawdown Indicators

	LSAF	FDLS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-41.67%	-23.32%	-18.35%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.58%	-9.55%	+2.97%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.26%	-23.32%	+3.06%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.94%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.25%	0.00%	-1.25%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.29%	-3.85%	-2.44%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.00%	2.41%	-0.41%

Volatility

LSAF vs. FDLS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for LeaderShares AlphaFactor US Core Equity ETF (LSAF) is 3.54%, while Inspire Fidelis Multi Factor ETF (FDLS) has a volatility of 5.22%. This indicates that LSAF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FDLS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	LSAF	FDLS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.54%	5.22%	-1.68%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.43%	12.80%	-2.37%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.39%	17.05%	-2.66%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.43%	19.07%	-0.64%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.84%	19.07%	+2.77%

LSAF vs. FDLS - Expense Ratio Comparison

LSAF has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is lower than FDLS's 0.76% expense ratio.

Dividends

LSAF vs. FDLS - Dividend Comparison

LSAF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.60%, less than FDLS's 0.84% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
FDLS Inspire Fidelis Multi Factor ETF	0.84%	0.86%	7.26%	0.97%	0.31%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
LSAF LeaderShares AlphaFactor US Core Equity ETF	0.60%	0.69%	0.42%	0.84%	0.96%	0.37%	0.53%	0.71%	0.20%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both LSAF and FDLS in my portfolio?

LSAF and FDLS have a correlation of 0.79, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, LSAF or FDLS?

FDLS has higher volatility (5.22%) compared to LSAF (3.54%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LSAF dropped -41.67% vs FDLS's -23.32%.

Which ETF is better, LSAF or FDLS?

On 3-year performance, FDLS leads with 20.22% vs 19.66% for LSAF. On fees, LSAF is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, LSAF has been the lower-risk option at 3.54%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, LSAF or FDLS?

Over the 3-year period, FDLS has performed better with a 20.22% return vs 19.66%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, LSAF or FDLS?

LSAF is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.76% for FDLS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, LSAF or FDLS?

FDLS has the higher dividend yield at 0.84%, compared with 0.60% for LSAF.

What is the main difference between LSAF and FDLS?

LSAF tracks AlphaFactor US Core Equity Index, while FDLS tracks WI Fidelis Multi-Cap, Multi-Factor Index - Benchmark TR Gross. They also come from different issuers: Redwood and Inspire. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for LSAF and 0.76% for FDLS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FDLS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.20 vs 1.79), 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.