MCDS vs. CAOS

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

MCDS (JPMorgan Fundamental Data Science Mid Core ETF) and CAOS (Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - MCDS is a Mid Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by JPMorgan, while CAOS is a Options Trading fund actively managed by Alpha Architect. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, MCDS returned 22.27% vs 1.85% for CAOS. At a correlation of -0.32, they often move in opposite directions. MCDS charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.63%/yr for CAOS.

Performance

MCDS vs. CAOS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in JPMorgan Fundamental Data Science Mid Core ETF (MCDS) 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, MCDS achieves a 13.38% return, which is significantly higher than CAOS's 0.77% return.

MCDS

• 1D: 0.44%
• 1M: 3.13%
• YTD: 13.38%
• 6M: 13.62%
• 1Y: 22.27%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CAOS

• 1D: -0.04%
• 1M: -0.05%
• YTD: 0.77%
• 6M: 0.63%
• 1Y: 1.85%
• 3Y*: 4.27%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

MCDS vs. CAOS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
MCDS JPMorgan Fundamental Data Science Mid Core ETF	13.38%	6.51%	9.83%
CAOS Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF	0.77%	2.55%	1.80%

Correlation

The correlation between MCDS and CAOS is -0.30, 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	-0.30
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 9, 2024	-0.32

MCDS vs. CAOS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	MCDS	CAOS
Industrials	18.2%	8.5%
Technology	17.3%	33.1%
Financial Services	13.5%	12.4%
Consumer Cyclical	11.1%	10.0%
Healthcare	8.9%	9.6%
Energy	7.2%	4.1%
Real Estate	7.1%	2.0%
Utilities	6.5%	2.6%
Consumer Defensive	4.2%	5.4%
Basic Materials	4.1%	1.9%
Communication Services	2.1%	10.4%

Return for Risk

MCDS vs. CAOS — Risk / Return Rank

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

MCDS

MCDS Risk / Return Rank: 55
MCDS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 50
MCDS Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
MCDS Omega Ratio Rank: 48
MCDS Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
MCDS Martin Ratio Rank: 62

CAOS

CAOS Risk / Return Rank: 40
CAOS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 35
CAOS Sortino Ratio Rank: 38
CAOS Omega Ratio Rank: 39
CAOS Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
CAOS Martin Ratio Rank: 39

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.

MCDS vs. CAOS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for JPMorgan Fundamental Data Science Mid Core ETF (MCDS) 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.

	MCDS	CAOS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.69	1.22	+0.48
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.48	1.94	+0.54
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.25	+0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.99	2.45	+0.55
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.12	6.09	+5.03
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

MCDS vs. CAOS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current MCDS Sharpe Ratio is 1.69, which is higher than the CAOS Sharpe Ratio of 1.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of MCDS 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

	MCDS	CAOS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.69	1.22	+0.48
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.00	1.21	-0.21

Drawdowns

MCDS vs. CAOS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum MCDS drawdown since its inception was -22.50%, which is greater than CAOS's maximum drawdown of -3.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MCDS and CAOS.

Drawdown Indicators

	MCDS	CAOS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.50%	-3.60%	-18.90%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.47%	-0.76%	-6.71%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-3.60%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-1.11%	+1.11%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.98%	-0.90%	-3.08%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.01%	0.30%	+1.71%

Volatility

MCDS vs. CAOS - Volatility Comparison

JPMorgan Fundamental Data Science Mid Core ETF (MCDS) has a higher volatility of 3.25% compared to Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS) at 0.25%. This indicates that MCDS'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

	MCDS	CAOS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.25%	0.25%	+3.00%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.86%	1.03%	+8.83%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.21%	1.52%	+11.69%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.94%	4.25%	+12.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.94%	4.25%	+12.69%

MCDS vs. CAOS - Expense Ratio Comparison

MCDS has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than CAOS's 0.63% expense ratio.

Dividends

MCDS vs. CAOS - Dividend Comparison

MCDS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.06%, while CAOS has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
CAOS Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
MCDS JPMorgan Fundamental Data Science Mid Core ETF	1.06%	1.23%	0.64%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both MCDS and CAOS in my portfolio?

MCDS and CAOS have a correlation of -0.30, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, MCDS or CAOS?

MCDS has higher volatility (3.25%) compared to CAOS (0.25%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MCDS dropped -22.50% vs CAOS's -3.60%.

Which ETF is better, MCDS or CAOS?

On 1-year performance, MCDS leads with 22.27% vs 1.85% for CAOS. On fees, MCDS is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, CAOS has been the lower-risk option at 0.25%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, MCDS or CAOS?

Over the 1-year period, MCDS has performed better with a 22.27% return vs 1.85%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, MCDS or CAOS?

MCDS is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.63% for CAOS.

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

MCDS has the higher dividend yield at 1.06%, compared with 0.00% for CAOS.

What is the main difference between MCDS and CAOS?

MCDS is categorized as Mid Cap Blend Equities, while CAOS is Options Trading. They also come from different issuers: JPMorgan and Alpha Architect. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for MCDS and 0.63% for CAOS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

MCDS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.69 vs 1.22), 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.