PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
LSAF vs. MOO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

LSAF vs. MOO - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, LSAF achieves a 19.96% return, which is significantly higher than MOO's 12.27% return.


LSAF

1D
-0.55%
1M
2.49%
6M
17.23%
YTD
19.96%
1Y
30.03%
3Y*
18.58%
5Y*
10.90%
10Y*
ALL TIME*
11.02%

MOO

1D
-2.16%
1M
1.00%
6M
1.76%
YTD
12.27%
1Y
16.07%
3Y*
0.90%
5Y*
0.10%
10Y*
7.40%
ALL TIME*
5.50%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison


PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)
$265.84K$205.64K$201.86K
$14.26M$13.98M$22.17M

LSAF vs. MOO - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
LSAF
LeaderShares AlphaFactor US Core Equity ETF
19.96%12.01%18.09%15.48%-13.12%22.75%6.92%28.35%-15.47%
MOO
VanEck Agribusiness ETF
12.27%15.61%-12.43%-8.57%-8.10%23.99%14.59%22.29%-12.06%

Correlation

The correlation between LSAF and MOO is 0.48, which is low. Their historical price movements had little consistent relationship.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.48

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.58

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.70

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 2, 2018

0.75

Over the past year, the correlation between LSAF and MOO has dropped to 0.48 - well below their long-term average of 0.75, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

LSAF vs. MOO - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
LSAF
MOO

Consumer Cyclical

19.9%

-

Financial Services

16.2%

-

Technology

15.4%

-

Industrials

10.7%
23.7%

Healthcare

7.8%
16.8%

Basic Materials

5.8%
26.1%

Communication Services

4.7%

-

Consumer Defensive

4.1%
33.4%

Energy

3.3%

-

Real Estate

2.1%

-

Utilities

0.9%

-

Consumer Cyclical

LSAF
19.9%
MOO

-

Financial Services

LSAF
16.2%
MOO

-

Technology

LSAF
15.4%
MOO

-

Industrials

LSAF
10.7%
MOO
23.7%

Healthcare

LSAF
7.8%
MOO
16.8%

Basic Materials

LSAF
5.8%
MOO
26.1%

Communication Services

LSAF
4.7%
MOO

-

Consumer Defensive

LSAF
4.1%
MOO
33.4%

Energy

LSAF
3.3%
MOO

-

Real Estate

LSAF
2.1%
MOO

-

Utilities

LSAF
0.9%
MOO

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

LSAF vs. MOO — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

LSAF
LSAF Risk / Return Rank: 8888
Overall Rank
LSAF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8585
Sharpe Ratio Rank
LSAF Sortino Ratio Rank: 8787
Sortino Ratio Rank
LSAF Omega Ratio Rank: 8282
Omega Ratio Rank
LSAF Calmar Ratio Rank: 9393
Calmar Ratio Rank
LSAF Martin Ratio Rank: 9191
Martin Ratio Rank

MOO
MOO Risk / Return Rank: 4141
Overall Rank
MOO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4444
Sharpe Ratio Rank
MOO Sortino Ratio Rank: 4444
Sortino Ratio Rank
MOO Omega Ratio Rank: 4242
Omega Ratio Rank
MOO Calmar Ratio Rank: 4040
Calmar Ratio Rank
MOO Martin Ratio Rank: 3636
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

LSAF vs. MOO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for LeaderShares AlphaFactor US Core Equity ETF (LSAF) and VanEck Agribusiness ETF (MOO). 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.


LSAFMOODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.93

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+1.35

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.35

1.19

+0.16

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

4.41

1.40

+3.01

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

14.86

3.60

+11.27

LSAF vs. MOO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current LSAF Sharpe Ratio is 2.03, which is higher than the MOO Sharpe Ratio of 1.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of LSAF and MOO, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

LSAF vs. MOO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum LSAF drawdown since its inception was -41.67%, smaller than the maximum MOO drawdown of -69.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for LSAF and MOO.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


LSAFMOODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-41.67%

-69.53%

+27.86%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-6.58%

-11.17%

+4.59%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-20.26%

-25.85%

+5.59%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-24.94%

-39.52%

+14.58%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-39.52%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.48%

-15.87%

+14.39%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.21%

-16.97%

+10.76%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.95%

4.33%

-2.38%

Volatility

LSAF vs. MOO - Volatility Comparison

LeaderShares AlphaFactor US Core Equity ETF (LSAF) and VanEck Agribusiness ETF (MOO) have volatilities of 4.21% and 4.28%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


LSAFMOODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.21%

4.28%

-0.07%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

10.49%

11.00%

-0.51%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

14.36%

14.29%

+0.07%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

18.38%

17.18%

+1.20%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.73%

18.14%

+3.59%

LSAF vs. MOO - Expense Ratio Comparison

LSAF has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than MOO's 0.56% expense ratio.


Dividends

LSAF vs. MOO - Dividend Comparison

LSAF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.57%, less than MOO's 2.20% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
LSAF
LeaderShares AlphaFactor US Core Equity ETF
0.57%0.69%0.42%0.84%0.96%0.37%0.53%0.71%0.20%0.00%0.00%0.00%
MOO
VanEck Agribusiness ETF
2.20%2.47%3.41%2.93%2.15%1.17%1.10%1.26%1.69%1.44%2.14%2.89%

Frequently Asked Questions


LSAF and MOO have a correlation of 0.48, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

MOO has higher volatility (4.28%) compared to LSAF (4.21%). In terms of maximum drawdown, LSAF dropped -41.67% vs MOO's -69.53%.

On 5-year performance, LSAF leads with 10.90% vs 0.10% for MOO. On fees, MOO is cheaper at 0.56% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, LSAF has performed better with a 10.90% return vs 0.10%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

MOO is cheaper with a 0.56% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for LSAF.

MOO has the higher dividend yield at 2.20%, compared with 0.57% for LSAF.

LSAF is categorized as Mid Cap Blend Equities, while MOO is Natural Resources. LSAF tracks AlphaFactor US Core Equity Index, while MOO tracks MVIS Global Agribusiness Index. They also come from different issuers: Redwood and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for LSAF and 0.56% for MOO.

LSAF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.03 vs 1.09), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for LSAF and MOO

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer