ONOF vs. RHRX

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ONOF (Global X Adaptive U.S. Risk Management ETF) and RHRX (RH Tactical Rotation ETF) are both Tactical Allocation funds. ONOF is passively managed, while RHRX is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, ONOF returned 13.72%/yr vs 22.87%/yr for RHRX. A 0.75 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ONOF charges 0.39%/yr vs 1.36%/yr for RHRX.

Performance

ONOF vs. RHRX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Global X Adaptive U.S. Risk Management ETF (ONOF) and RH Tactical Rotation ETF (RHRX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ONOF achieves a 7.32% return, which is significantly lower than RHRX's 21.30% return.

ONOF

• 1D: -0.68%
• 1M: 5.26%
• YTD: 7.32%
• 6M: 7.29%
• 1Y: 23.60%
• 3Y*: 13.72%
• 5Y*: 9.34%
• 10Y*: —

RHRX

• 1D: -0.34%
• 1M: 6.95%
• YTD: 21.30%
• 6M: 21.26%
• 1Y: 40.94%
• 3Y*: 22.87%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

ONOF vs. RHRX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
ONOF Global X Adaptive U.S. Risk Management ETF	7.32%	8.90%	19.45%	11.57%	-11.89%	1.46%
RHRX RH Tactical Rotation ETF	21.30%	16.70%	22.21%	10.28%	-20.05%	1.33%

Correlation

The correlation between ONOF and RHRX is 0.85, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.85
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.83
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 9, 2021	0.75

The correlation between ONOF and RHRX shifts across timeframes, from 0.75 (all time) to 0.85 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

ONOF vs. RHRX - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ONOF	RHRX
Technology	35.6%	39.3%
Communication Services	11.6%	6.3%
Financial Services	11.5%	4.9%
Consumer Cyclical	10.1%	6.7%
Healthcare	8.6%	3.3%
Industrials	8.3%	17.4%
Consumer Defensive	4.8%	1.5%
Energy	3.6%	0.9%
Utilities	2.3%	3.3%
Basic Materials	1.8%	15.8%
Real Estate	1.8%	0.6%

Return for Risk

ONOF vs. RHRX — Risk / Return Rank

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

ONOF

ONOF Risk / Return Rank: 64
ONOF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
ONOF Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
ONOF Omega Ratio Rank: 61
ONOF Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
ONOF Martin Ratio Rank: 65

RHRX

RHRX Risk / Return Rank: 90
RHRX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
RHRX Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
RHRX Omega Ratio Rank: 87
RHRX Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
RHRX Martin Ratio Rank: 92

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.

ONOF vs. RHRX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Global X Adaptive U.S. Risk Management ETF (ONOF) and RH Tactical Rotation ETF (RHRX). 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.

	ONOF	RHRX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.11	3.12	-1.01
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.86	4.21	-1.35
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.54	-0.17
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.45	6.02	-2.57
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.88	23.61	-11.73
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ONOF vs. RHRX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ONOF Sharpe Ratio is 2.11, which is lower than the RHRX Sharpe Ratio of 3.12. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ONOF and RHRX, 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

	ONOF	RHRX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.11	3.12	-1.01
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.66	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.74	0.53	+0.21

Drawdowns

ONOF vs. RHRX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ONOF drawdown since its inception was -26.21%, roughly equal to the maximum RHRX drawdown of -25.33%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ONOF and RHRX.

Drawdown Indicators

	ONOF	RHRX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-26.21%	-25.33%	-0.88%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.86%	-6.83%	-0.03%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.67%	-21.90%	+0.23%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-26.21%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.68%	-0.34%	-0.34%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.15%	-8.95%	+2.80%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.99%	1.74%	+0.25%

Volatility

ONOF vs. RHRX - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Global X Adaptive U.S. Risk Management ETF (ONOF) is 3.03%, while RH Tactical Rotation ETF (RHRX) has a volatility of 4.35%. This indicates that ONOF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RHRX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ONOF	RHRX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.03%	4.35%	-1.32%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.95%	9.73%	-1.78%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.25%	13.19%	-1.94%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.30%	19.03%	-4.73%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.33%	19.03%	-4.70%

ONOF vs. RHRX - Expense Ratio Comparison

ONOF has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than RHRX's 1.36% expense ratio.

Dividends

ONOF vs. RHRX - Dividend Comparison

ONOF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.29%, while RHRX has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
ONOF Global X Adaptive U.S. Risk Management ETF	1.29%	1.38%	0.93%	1.37%	1.92%	0.69%
RHRX RH Tactical Rotation ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ONOF and RHRX in my portfolio?

ONOF and RHRX have a correlation of 0.85, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ONOF or RHRX?

RHRX has higher volatility (4.35%) compared to ONOF (3.03%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ONOF dropped -26.21% vs RHRX's -25.33%.

Which ETF is better, ONOF or RHRX?

On 3-year performance, RHRX leads with 22.87% vs 13.72% for ONOF. On fees, ONOF is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, ONOF has been the lower-risk option at 3.03%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ONOF or RHRX?

Over the 3-year period, RHRX has performed better with a 22.87% return vs 13.72%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ONOF or RHRX?

ONOF is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 1.36% for RHRX.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ONOF or RHRX?

ONOF has the higher dividend yield at 1.29%, compared with 0.00% for RHRX.

What is the main difference between ONOF and RHRX?

They also come from different issuers: Global X and Adaptive. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for ONOF and 1.36% for RHRX.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RHRX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.12 vs 2.11), 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.