MJ vs. ASCE
MJ (ETFMG Alternative Harvest ETF) and ASCE (Allspring SMID Core ETF) are both Small Cap Blend Equities funds. MJ is passively managed, while ASCE is actively managed. Over the past year, MJ returned 21.05% vs 38.53% for ASCE. At a 0.32 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. MJ charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.38%/yr for ASCE.
Performance
MJ vs. ASCE - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, MJ achieves a -20.11% return, which is significantly lower than ASCE's 26.69% return.
MJ
- 1D
- 0.98%
- 1M
- -5.74%
- 6M
- -21.83%
- YTD
- -20.11%
- 1Y
- 21.05%
- 3Y*
- -10.46%
- 5Y*
- -34.03%
- 10Y*
- —
ASCE
- 1D
- -0.03%
- 1M
- -2.74%
- 6M
- 19.06%
- YTD
- 26.69%
- 1Y
- 38.53%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
MJ vs. ASCE - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
MJ ETFMG Alternative Harvest ETF | -20.11% | 62.18% |
ASCE Allspring SMID Core ETF | 26.69% | 8.46% |
Correlation
The correlation between MJ and ASCE is 0.32, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.32 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 8, 2025 | 0.32 |
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
MJ vs. ASCE — Risk / Return Rank
MJ
ASCE
MJ vs. ASCE - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ETFMG Alternative Harvest ETF (MJ) and Allspring SMID Core ETF (ASCE). 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.
| MJ | ASCE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.72 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.67 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.13 | 1.33 | -0.20 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.43 | 4.20 | -3.76 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 0.70 | 13.04 | -12.34 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
MJ vs. ASCE - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum MJ drawdown since its inception was -96.55%, which is greater than ASCE's maximum drawdown of -9.22%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for MJ and ASCE.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| MJ | ASCE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -96.55% | -9.22% | -87.33% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -48.66% | -9.22% | -39.44% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -69.73% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -92.00% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -94.84% | -3.49% | -91.35% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -69.53% | -2.04% | -67.49% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 30.08% | 2.96% | +27.12% |
Volatility
MJ vs. ASCE - Volatility Comparison
ETFMG Alternative Harvest ETF (MJ) has a higher volatility of 11.45% compared to Allspring SMID Core ETF (ASCE) at 6.22%. This indicates that MJ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ASCE based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| MJ | ASCE | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 11.45% | 6.22% | +5.23% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 39.73% | 14.96% | +24.77% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 86.44% | 19.70% | +66.74% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 60.05% | 19.60% | +40.45% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 55.56% | 19.60% | +35.96% |
MJ vs. ASCE - Expense Ratio Comparison
MJ has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than ASCE's 0.38% expense ratio.
Dividends
MJ vs. ASCE - Dividend Comparison
MJ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.48%, more than ASCE's 0.17% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 |
|---|---|---|---|
ASCE Allspring SMID Core ETF | 0.17% | 0.22% | 0.00% |
MJ ETFMG Alternative Harvest ETF | 2.48% | 1.98% | 13.80% |
Frequently Asked Questions
MJ and ASCE have a correlation of 0.32, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
MJ has higher volatility (11.45%) compared to ASCE (6.22%). In terms of maximum drawdown, MJ dropped -96.55% vs ASCE's -9.22%.
On 1-year performance, ASCE leads with 38.53% vs 21.05% for MJ. On fees, ASCE is cheaper at 0.38% per year. On volatility, ASCE has been the lower-risk option at 6.22%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 1-year period, ASCE has performed better with a 38.53% return vs 21.05%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
ASCE is cheaper with a 0.38% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for MJ.
MJ has the higher dividend yield at 2.48%, compared with 0.17% for ASCE.
They also come from different issuers: ETFMG and Allspring. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for MJ and 0.38% for ASCE.
ASCE currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.96 vs 0.24), 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.
Find the right allocation for MJ and ASCE
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