RECS vs. PRF

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

RECS (Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF) and PRF (Invesco RAFI US 1000 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RECS is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Beta Advantage Research Enhanced U.S. Equity Index, while PRF is a Large Cap Value Equities fund tracking the RAFI Fundamental Select US 1000 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, RECS returned 9.79%/yr vs 14.01%/yr for PRF. At a 0.44 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. RECS charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.34%/yr for PRF.

Performance

RECS vs. PRF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF (RECS) and Invesco RAFI US 1000 ETF (PRF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RECS achieves a 5.58% return, which is significantly lower than PRF's 15.07% return. Over the past 10 years, RECS has underperformed PRF with an annualized return of 9.79%, while PRF has yielded a comparatively higher 14.01% annualized return.

RECS

• 1D: -0.30%
• 1M: -0.32%
• YTD: 5.58%
• 6M: 5.12%
• 1Y: 23.04%
• 3Y*: 20.79%
• 5Y*: 13.80%
• 10Y*: 9.79%

PRF

• 1D: -0.15%
• 1M: 1.07%
• YTD: 15.07%
• 6M: 14.51%
• 1Y: 32.54%
• 3Y*: 21.07%
• 5Y*: 13.06%
• 10Y*: 14.01%

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

RECS vs. PRF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
RECS Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF	5.58%	19.30%	26.27%	23.19%	-14.39%	32.73%	15.35%	-0.93%	0.00%	0.00%
PRF Invesco RAFI US 1000 ETF	15.07%	18.33%	16.73%	15.72%	-7.79%	31.12%	7.78%	27.42%	-8.71%	16.01%

Correlation

The correlation between RECS and PRF is 0.83, 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	0.83
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.84
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.88
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.70
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 19, 2005	0.44

Over the past year, RECS and PRF have become more correlated (0.83) than their long-term average of 0.44, meaning their price movements have been converging.

RECS vs. PRF - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RECS	PRF
Technology	32.9%	24.4%
Financial Services	16.9%	15.6%
Consumer Cyclical	10.4%	8.7%
Healthcare	9.2%	11.6%
Communication Services	7.6%	9.1%
Industrials	7.3%	9.0%
Consumer Defensive	4.8%	5.9%
Energy	3.5%	7.2%
Utilities	2.3%	3.0%
Real Estate	2.3%	2.3%
Basic Materials	2.2%	3.3%

Return for Risk

RECS vs. PRF — Risk / Return Rank

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

RECS

RECS Risk / Return Rank: 58
RECS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
RECS Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
RECS Omega Ratio Rank: 56
RECS Calmar Ratio Rank: 55
RECS Martin Ratio Rank: 63

PRF

PRF Risk / Return Rank: 90
PRF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 91
PRF Sortino Ratio Rank: 91
PRF Omega Ratio Rank: 89
PRF Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
PRF Martin Ratio Rank: 91

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.

RECS vs. PRF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF (RECS) and Invesco RAFI US 1000 ETF (PRF). 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	PRF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.91	2.98	-1.07
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.65	4.10	-1.45
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.34	1.54	-0.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.62	4.96	-2.34
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.11	20.23	-9.12

RECS vs. PRF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RECS Sharpe Ratio is 1.91, which is lower than the PRF Sharpe Ratio of 2.98. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RECS and PRF, 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. PRF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RECS drawdown since its inception was -34.29%, smaller than the maximum PRF drawdown of -60.35%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RECS and PRF.

Drawdown Indicators

	RECS	PRF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-34.29%	-60.35%	+26.06%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.82%	-6.59%	-2.23%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.60%	-15.82%	-2.78%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-22.08%	-19.72%	-2.36%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-34.29%	-38.16%	+3.87%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.89%	-1.18%	-0.71%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.28%	-6.91%	+5.63%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.08%	1.61%	+0.47%

Volatility

RECS vs. PRF - Volatility Comparison

Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF (RECS) has a higher volatility of 3.86% compared to Invesco RAFI US 1000 ETF (PRF) at 3.66%. This indicates that RECS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than PRF based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RECS	PRF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.86%	3.66%	+0.20%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.37%	8.22%	+1.15%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.12%	10.99%	+1.13%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.43%	15.20%	+1.23%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.26%	17.69%	-1.43%

RECS vs. PRF - Expense Ratio Comparison

RECS has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than PRF's 0.34% expense ratio.

Dividends

RECS vs. PRF - Dividend Comparison

RECS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.05%, less than PRF's 1.38% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
PRF Invesco RAFI US 1000 ETF	1.38%	1.59%	1.78%	1.84%	2.01%	1.58%	1.97%	1.99%	2.25%	1.58%	2.17%	2.25%
RECS Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF	1.05%	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

Can I hold both RECS and PRF in my portfolio?

RECS and PRF have a correlation of 0.83, 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 PRF?

RECS has higher volatility (3.86%) compared to PRF (3.66%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RECS dropped -34.29% vs PRF's -60.35%.

Which ETF is better, RECS or PRF?

On 10-year performance, PRF leads with 14.01% vs 9.79% for RECS. On fees, RECS is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, PRF has been the lower-risk option at 3.66%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RECS or PRF?

Over the 10-year period, PRF has performed better with a 14.01% return vs 9.79%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RECS or PRF?

RECS is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.34% for PRF.

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

PRF has the higher dividend yield at 1.38%, compared with 1.05% for RECS.

What is the main difference between RECS and PRF?

RECS is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while PRF is Large Cap Value Equities. RECS tracks Beta Advantage Research Enhanced U.S. Equity Index, while PRF tracks RAFI Fundamental Select US 1000 Index. They also come from different issuers: Ameriprise Financial and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for RECS and 0.34% for PRF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PRF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.98 vs 1.91), 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.