RECS vs. DARP

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

RECS (Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF) and DARP (Grizzle Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. RECS is passively managed, while DARP is actively managed. Over the past year, RECS returned 20.01% vs 53.03% for DARP. Their 0.73 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. RECS charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for DARP.

Performance

RECS vs. DARP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF (RECS) and Grizzle Growth ETF (DARP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RECS achieves a 8.13% return, which is significantly lower than DARP's 24.09% return.

RECS

• 1D: 0.91%
• 1M: 1.54%
• 6M: 6.59%
• YTD: 8.13%
• 1Y: 20.01%
• 3Y*: 20.51%
• 5Y*: 13.31%
• 10Y*: 10.05%
• ALL TIME*: 3.91%

DARP

• 1D: 2.48%
• 1M: -1.50%
• 6M: 11.54%
• YTD: 24.09%
• 1Y: 53.03%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 32.92%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
DARP Grizzle Growth ETF	$367.14K	$288.77K	$436.18K
RECS Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF	$24.00M	$20.19M	$19.93M

RECS vs. DARP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
RECS Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF	8.13%	19.30%	26.27%	9.08%
DARP Grizzle Growth ETF	24.09%	40.19%	24.63%	6.25%

Correlation

The correlation between RECS and DARP is 0.63, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.63
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 28, 2023	0.73

The correlation between RECS and DARP shifts across timeframes, from 0.63 (1 year) to 0.73 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

RECS vs. DARP - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RECS	DARP
Technology	36.6%	48.3%
Financial Services	11.9%	-
Communication Services	10.2%	13.5%
Consumer Cyclical	9.4%	8.3%
Healthcare	9.1%	1.4%
Industrials	8.9%	8.2%
Consumer Defensive	4.5%	-
Energy	3.0%	9.2%
Real Estate	2.2%	-
Utilities	2.2%	5.2%
Basic Materials	1.9%	4.2%

Return for Risk

RECS vs. DARP — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

RECS

RECS Risk / Return Rank: 68
RECS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
RECS Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
RECS Omega Ratio Rank: 66
RECS Calmar Ratio Rank: 63
RECS Martin Ratio Rank: 73

DARP

DARP Risk / Return Rank: 80
DARP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
DARP Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
DARP Omega Ratio Rank: 72
DARP Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
DARP Martin Ratio Rank: 86

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

RECS vs. DARP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF (RECS) and Grizzle Growth ETF (DARP). 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.

	RECS	DARP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.65	1.99	-0.34
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.31	2.47	-0.16
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.31	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.28	3.38	-1.10
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.45	12.79	-3.34

RECS vs. DARP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RECS Sharpe Ratio is 1.65, which is comparable to the DARP Sharpe Ratio of 1.99. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RECS and DARP, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

RECS vs. DARP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RECS drawdown since its inception was -34.29%, which is greater than DARP's maximum drawdown of -30.27%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RECS and DARP.

Drawdown Indicators

	RECS	DARP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-34.29%	-30.27%	-4.02%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.82%	-15.76%	+6.94%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.60%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-22.08%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-34.29%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.10%	-7.17%	+6.07%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.28%	-4.72%	+3.44%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.12%	4.16%	-2.04%

Volatility

RECS vs. DARP - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF (RECS) is 3.25%, while Grizzle Growth ETF (DARP) has a volatility of 9.89%. This indicates that RECS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than DARP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RECS	DARP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.25%	9.89%	-6.64%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.43%	21.41%	-11.98%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.22%	26.90%	-14.68%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.41%	26.84%	-10.43%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.30%	26.84%	-10.54%

RECS vs. DARP - Expense Ratio Comparison

RECS has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than DARP's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

RECS vs. DARP - Dividend Comparison

RECS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.03%, more than DARP's 0.35% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
DARP Grizzle Growth ETF	0.35%	0.43%	1.93%	0.32%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RECS Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF	1.03%	1.11%	1.09%	1.00%	1.41%	20.64%	1.09%	0.49%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RECS and DARP in my portfolio?

RECS and DARP have a correlation of 0.63, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RECS or DARP?

DARP has higher volatility (9.89%) compared to RECS (3.25%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RECS dropped -34.29% vs DARP's -30.27%.

Which ETF is better, RECS or DARP?

On 1-year performance, DARP leads with 53.03% vs 20.01% for RECS. On fees, RECS is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, RECS has been the lower-risk option at 3.25%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RECS or DARP?

Over the 1-year period, DARP has performed better with a 53.03% return vs 20.01%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RECS or DARP?

RECS is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for DARP.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RECS or DARP?

RECS has the higher dividend yield at 1.03%, compared with 0.35% for DARP.

What is the main difference between RECS and DARP?

They also come from different issuers: Ameriprise Financial and Grizzle. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for RECS and 0.75% for DARP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DARP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.99 vs 1.65), 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.