RAA vs. RULE

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RAA (SMI 3Fourteen REAL Asset Allocation ETF) and RULE (Adaptive Core ETF) are both Diversified Portfolio funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, RAA returned 24.53% vs 52.19% for RULE. Their correlation of 0.84 suggests significant overlap in exposure. RAA charges 0.85%/yr vs 1.10%/yr for RULE.

Performance

RAA vs. RULE - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in SMI 3Fourteen REAL Asset Allocation ETF (RAA) and Adaptive Core ETF (RULE). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RAA achieves a 11.05% return, which is significantly lower than RULE's 45.39% return.

RAA

• 1D: -0.40%
• 1M: 3.67%
• YTD: 11.05%
• 6M: 11.04%
• 1Y: 24.53%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RULE

• 1D: 0.66%
• 1M: 21.60%
• YTD: 45.39%
• 6M: 45.86%
• 1Y: 52.19%
• 3Y*: 20.38%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RAA vs. RULE - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
RAA SMI 3Fourteen REAL Asset Allocation ETF	11.05%	12.12%
RULE Adaptive Core ETF	45.39%	4.72%

Correlation

The correlation between RAA and RULE is 0.82, 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	0.82
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 27, 2025	0.84

The correlation between RAA and RULE has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

RAA vs. RULE — Risk / Return Rank

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

RAA

RAA Risk / Return Rank: 81
RAA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
RAA Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
RAA Omega Ratio Rank: 80
RAA Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
RAA Martin Ratio Rank: 83

RULE

RULE Risk / Return Rank: 79
RULE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
RULE Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
RULE Omega Ratio Rank: 76
RULE Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
RULE Martin Ratio Rank: 83

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.

RAA vs. RULE - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for SMI 3Fourteen REAL Asset Allocation ETF (RAA) and Adaptive Core ETF (RULE). 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.

	RAA	RULE	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.60	2.59	+0.01
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.57	3.47	+0.10
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.48	1.46	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.17	4.15	+0.02
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.80	16.93	-0.13
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RAA vs. RULE - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RAA Sharpe Ratio is 2.60, which is comparable to the RULE Sharpe Ratio of 2.59. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RAA and RULE, 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

	RAA	RULE	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.60	2.59	+0.01
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.49	0.47	+1.03

Drawdowns

RAA vs. RULE - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RAA drawdown since its inception was -11.80%, smaller than the maximum RULE drawdown of -30.48%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RAA and RULE.

Drawdown Indicators

	RAA	RULE	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-11.80%	-30.48%	+18.68%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.91%	-12.65%	+6.74%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-20.21%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.40%	0.00%	-0.40%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.41%	-14.98%	+13.57%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.46%	3.09%	-1.63%

Volatility

RAA vs. RULE - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for SMI 3Fourteen REAL Asset Allocation ETF (RAA) is 2.92%, while Adaptive Core ETF (RULE) has a volatility of 9.59%. This indicates that RAA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RULE based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RAA	RULE	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.92%	9.59%	-6.67%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.44%	17.54%	-10.10%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.49%	20.25%	-10.76%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.71%	14.83%	-2.12%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.71%	14.83%	-2.12%

RAA vs. RULE - Expense Ratio Comparison

RAA has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is lower than RULE's 1.10% expense ratio.

Dividends

RAA vs. RULE - Dividend Comparison

RAA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.10%, while RULE has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
RAA SMI 3Fourteen REAL Asset Allocation ETF	2.10%	2.14%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RULE Adaptive Core ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	2.01%	0.01%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RAA and RULE in my portfolio?

RAA and RULE have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RAA or RULE?

RULE has higher volatility (9.59%) compared to RAA (2.92%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RAA dropped -11.80% vs RULE's -30.48%.

Which ETF is better, RAA or RULE?

On 1-year performance, RULE leads with 52.19% vs 24.53% for RAA. On fees, RAA is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, RAA has been the lower-risk option at 2.92%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RAA or RULE?

Over the 1-year period, RULE has performed better with a 52.19% return vs 24.53%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RAA or RULE?

RAA is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 1.10% for RULE.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RAA or RULE?

RAA has the higher dividend yield at 2.10%, compared with 0.00% for RULE.

What is the main difference between RAA and RULE?

They also come from different issuers: SMI Advisory Services and Mohr Funds. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for RAA and 1.10% for RULE.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RAA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.60 vs 2.59), 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.