PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
RECS vs. OUSA
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

RECS vs. OUSA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF (RECS) and OShares U.S. Quality Dividend ETF (OUSA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RECS achieves a 8.13% return, which is significantly higher than OUSA's 7.09% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with RECS having a 10.05% annualized return and OUSA not far ahead at 10.40%.


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%

OUSA

1D
0.53%
1M
2.40%
6M
3.84%
YTD
7.09%
1Y
16.21%
3Y*
13.56%
5Y*
8.96%
10Y*
10.40%
ALL TIME*
10.73%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison


PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)
$872.37K$1.31M$1.44M
$24.00M$20.19M$19.93M

RECS vs. OUSA - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
RECS
Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF
8.13%19.30%26.27%23.19%-14.39%32.73%15.35%-0.93%0.00%0.00%
OUSA
OShares U.S. Quality Dividend ETF
7.09%10.23%17.09%13.44%-9.33%23.75%6.96%25.03%-3.11%18.81%

Correlation

The correlation between RECS and OUSA 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 (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.75

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.81

Correlation (10Y)
Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.

0.68

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 14, 2015

0.63

The correlation between RECS and OUSA shifts across timeframes, from 0.63 (1 year) to 0.81 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

RECS vs. OUSA - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
RECS
OUSA

Technology

36.6%
23.7%

Financial Services

11.9%
18.6%

Communication Services

10.2%
10.3%

Consumer Cyclical

9.4%
13.1%

Healthcare

9.1%
15.1%

Industrials

8.9%
11.9%

Consumer Defensive

4.5%
7.4%

Energy

3.0%

-

Real Estate

2.2%

-

Utilities

2.2%

-

Basic Materials

1.9%

-

Technology

RECS
36.6%
OUSA
23.7%

Financial Services

RECS
11.9%
OUSA
18.6%

Communication Services

RECS
10.2%
OUSA
10.3%

Consumer Cyclical

RECS
9.4%
OUSA
13.1%

Healthcare

RECS
9.1%
OUSA
15.1%

Industrials

RECS
8.9%
OUSA
11.9%

Consumer Defensive

RECS
4.5%
OUSA
7.4%

Energy

RECS
3.0%
OUSA

-

Real Estate

RECS
2.2%
OUSA

-

Utilities

RECS
2.2%
OUSA

-

Basic Materials

RECS
1.9%
OUSA

-

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

RECS vs. OUSA — Risk / Return Rank

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

RECS
RECS Risk / Return Rank: 6868
Overall Rank
RECS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6969
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RECS Sortino Ratio Rank: 6868
Sortino Ratio Rank
RECS Omega Ratio Rank: 6666
Omega Ratio Rank
RECS Calmar Ratio Rank: 6363
Calmar Ratio Rank
RECS Martin Ratio Rank: 7373
Martin Ratio Rank

OUSA
OUSA Risk / Return Rank: 6262
Overall Rank
OUSA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6767
Sharpe Ratio Rank
OUSA Sortino Ratio Rank: 7272
Sortino Ratio Rank
OUSA Omega Ratio Rank: 6565
Omega Ratio Rank
OUSA Calmar Ratio Rank: 5353
Calmar Ratio Rank
OUSA Martin Ratio Rank: 5555
Martin Ratio Rank
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. OUSA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF (RECS) and OShares U.S. Quality Dividend ETF (OUSA). 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.


RECSOUSADifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.06

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.10

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.29

1.28

+0.01

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.28

1.95

+0.33

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

9.45

6.80

+2.66

RECS vs. OUSA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RECS Sharpe Ratio is 1.65, which is comparable to the OUSA Sharpe Ratio of 1.59. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RECS and OUSA, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

RECS vs. OUSA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RECS drawdown since its inception was -34.29%, roughly equal to the maximum OUSA drawdown of -33.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RECS and OUSA.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


RECSOUSADifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-34.29%

-33.12%

-1.17%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.82%

-8.36%

-0.46%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-18.60%

-13.14%

-5.46%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-22.08%

-19.54%

-2.54%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-34.29%

-33.12%

-1.17%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.10%

-0.23%

-0.87%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-1.28%

-3.50%

+2.22%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.12%

2.39%

-0.27%

Volatility

RECS vs. OUSA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF (RECS) is 3.25%, while OShares U.S. Quality Dividend ETF (OUSA) has a volatility of 3.65%. This indicates that RECS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than OUSA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


RECSOUSADifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.25%

3.65%

-0.40%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.43%

8.12%

+1.31%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

12.22%

10.25%

+1.97%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.41%

13.38%

+3.03%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.30%

15.19%

+1.11%

RECS vs. OUSA - Expense Ratio Comparison

RECS has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than OUSA's 0.48% expense ratio.


Dividends

RECS vs. OUSA - Dividend Comparison

RECS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.03%, less than OUSA's 1.35% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
OUSA
OShares U.S. Quality Dividend ETF
1.35%1.39%1.50%1.81%1.92%1.56%2.03%2.31%3.06%2.15%2.32%1.17%
RECS
Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF
1.03%1.11%1.09%1.00%1.41%20.64%1.09%0.49%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


RECS and OUSA 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.

OUSA has higher volatility (3.65%) compared to RECS (3.25%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RECS dropped -34.29% vs OUSA's -33.12%.

On 10-year performance, OUSA leads with 10.40% vs 10.05% 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.

Over the 10-year period, OUSA has performed better with a 10.40% return vs 10.05%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

RECS is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.48% for OUSA.

OUSA has the higher dividend yield at 1.35%, compared with 1.03% for RECS.

RECS is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while OUSA is Quality Factor. RECS tracks Beta Advantage Research Enhanced U.S. Equity Index, while OUSA tracks O'Shares US Quality Dividend Index. They also come from different issuers: Ameriprise Financial and O'Shares Investments. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for RECS and 0.48% for OUSA.

RECS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.65 vs 1.59), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for RECS and OUSA

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