MFIG vs. RFDA
MFIG (Motley Fool Innovative Growth Factor ETF) and RFDA (RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. MFIG is passively managed, while RFDA is actively managed. A 0.61 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. MFIG charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.52%/yr for RFDA.
Performance
MFIG vs. RFDA - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, MFIG achieves a 0.01% return, which is significantly lower than RFDA's 10.33% return.
MFIG
- 1D
- 0.33%
- 1M
- -2.08%
- YTD
- 0.01%
- 6M
- -1.62%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
RFDA
- 1D
- -0.39%
- 1M
- -0.03%
- YTD
- 10.33%
- 6M
- 9.16%
- 1Y
- 25.01%
- 3Y*
- 18.64%
- 5Y*
- 12.74%
- 10Y*
- 13.35%
MFIG vs. RFDA - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
MFIG Motley Fool Innovative Growth Factor ETF | 0.01% | -0.09% |
RFDA RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF | 10.33% | 0.83% |
Correlation
The correlation between MFIG and RFDA is 0.61, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 9, 2025 | 0.61 |
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
MFIG vs. RFDA — Risk / Return Rank
MFIG
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
RFDA
MFIG vs. RFDA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Motley Fool Innovative Growth Factor ETF (MFIG) and RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF (RFDA). 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.
| MFIG | RFDA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.40 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 4.61 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 16.42 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
MFIG vs. RFDA - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum MFIG drawdown since its inception was -14.29%, smaller than the maximum RFDA drawdown of -34.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MFIG and RFDA.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| MFIG | RFDA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -14.29% | -34.60% | +20.31% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -5.45% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -19.35% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -19.35% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -34.60% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -6.19% | -2.06% | -4.13% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.62% | -3.73% | -0.89% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 1.53% | — |
Volatility
MFIG vs. RFDA - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| MFIG | RFDA | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 3.21% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 8.78% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 17.04% | 11.71% | +5.33% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 17.04% | 15.75% | +1.29% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 17.04% | 16.87% | +0.17% |
MFIG vs. RFDA - Expense Ratio Comparison
MFIG has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than RFDA's 0.52% expense ratio.
Dividends
MFIG vs. RFDA - Dividend Comparison
MFIG has not paid dividends to shareholders, while RFDA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.81%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MFIG Motley Fool Innovative Growth Factor ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
RFDA RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF | 1.81% | 1.89% | 2.23% | 2.68% | 3.57% | 1.44% | 1.62% | 1.87% | 2.44% | 1.90% | 0.98% |
Frequently Asked Questions
MFIG and RFDA have a correlation of 0.61, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, MFIG is cheaper at 0.50% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
MFIG is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.52% for RFDA.
RFDA has the higher dividend yield at 1.81%, compared with 0.00% for MFIG.
They also come from different issuers: Motley Fool and SS&C. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for MFIG and 0.52% for RFDA.
Find the right allocation for MFIG and RFDA
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