RECS vs. TDVG

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

RECS (Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF) and TDVG (T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. RECS is passively managed, while TDVG is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, RECS returned 13.53%/yr vs 10.19%/yr for TDVG. Their correlation of 0.88 suggests significant overlap in exposure. RECS charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for TDVG.

Performance

RECS vs. TDVG - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RECS achieves a 4.95% return, which is significantly lower than TDVG's 8.04% return.

RECS

• 1D: -0.60%
• 1M: -0.92%
• YTD: 4.95%
• 6M: 3.98%
• 1Y: 21.27%
• 3Y*: 20.55%
• 5Y*: 13.53%
• 10Y*: 9.72%

TDVG

• 1D: -0.55%
• 1M: 1.22%
• YTD: 8.04%
• 6M: 7.41%
• 1Y: 17.57%
• 3Y*: 15.55%
• 5Y*: 10.19%
• 10Y*: —

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

RECS vs. TDVG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
RECS Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF	4.95%	19.30%	26.27%	23.19%	-14.39%	32.73%	13.19%
TDVG T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF	8.04%	14.80%	13.45%	13.95%	-10.15%	26.20%	12.97%

Correlation

The correlation between RECS and TDVG is 0.79, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.79
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.82
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.87
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 5, 2020	0.88

The correlation between RECS and TDVG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.79 to 0.88 - a consistent structural relationship.

RECS vs. TDVG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RECS	TDVG
Technology	32.9%	26.2%
Financial Services	16.9%	19.3%
Consumer Cyclical	10.4%	7.2%
Healthcare	9.2%	12.4%
Communication Services	7.6%	1.0%
Industrials	7.3%	13.6%
Consumer Defensive	4.8%	6.9%
Energy	3.5%	5.3%
Utilities	2.3%	3.8%
Real Estate	2.3%	1.6%
Basic Materials	2.2%	2.8%

Return for Risk

RECS vs. TDVG — Risk / Return Rank

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

RECS

RECS Risk / Return Rank: 55
RECS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
RECS Sortino Ratio Rank: 54
RECS Omega Ratio Rank: 52
RECS Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
RECS Martin Ratio Rank: 60

TDVG

TDVG Risk / Return Rank: 56
TDVG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
TDVG Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
TDVG Omega Ratio Rank: 54
TDVG Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
TDVG Martin Ratio Rank: 59

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. TDVG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF (RECS) and T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF (TDVG). 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	TDVG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.77	1.81	-0.04
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.47	2.60	-0.13
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.32	-0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.42	2.44	-0.02
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.23	10.01	+0.22

RECS vs. TDVG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RECS Sharpe Ratio is 1.77, which is comparable to the TDVG Sharpe Ratio of 1.81. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RECS and TDVG, 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. TDVG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RECS drawdown since its inception was -34.29%, which is greater than TDVG's maximum drawdown of -19.20%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RECS and TDVG.

Drawdown Indicators

	RECS	TDVG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-34.29%	-19.20%	-15.09%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.82%	-7.24%	-1.58%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.60%	-14.02%	-4.58%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-22.08%	-19.20%	-2.88%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-34.29%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.48%	-0.82%	-1.66%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.28%	-3.73%	+2.45%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.08%	1.76%	+0.32%

Volatility

RECS vs. TDVG - Volatility Comparison

Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF (RECS) has a higher volatility of 3.90% compared to T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF (TDVG) at 2.78%. This indicates that RECS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than TDVG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RECS	TDVG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.90%	2.78%	+1.12%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.38%	7.61%	+1.77%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.11%	9.79%	+2.32%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.43%	13.92%	+2.51%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.26%	13.90%	+2.36%

RECS vs. TDVG - Expense Ratio Comparison

RECS has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than TDVG's 0.50% expense ratio.

Dividends

RECS vs. TDVG - Dividend Comparison

RECS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.06%, more than TDVG's 0.98% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
RECS Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF	1.06%	1.11%	1.09%	1.00%	1.41%	20.64%	1.09%	0.49%
TDVG T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF	0.98%	1.00%	1.06%	1.31%	1.15%	0.80%	0.40%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RECS and TDVG in my portfolio?

RECS and TDVG have a correlation of 0.79, 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 TDVG?

RECS has higher volatility (3.90%) compared to TDVG (2.78%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RECS dropped -34.29% vs TDVG's -19.20%.

Which ETF is better, RECS or TDVG?

On 5-year performance, RECS leads with 13.53% vs 10.19% for TDVG. On fees, RECS is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, TDVG has been the lower-risk option at 2.78%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RECS or TDVG?

Over the 5-year period, RECS has performed better with a 13.53% return vs 10.19%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RECS or TDVG?

RECS is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for TDVG.

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

RECS has the higher dividend yield at 1.06%, compared with 0.98% for TDVG.

What is the main difference between RECS and TDVG?

They also come from different issuers: Ameriprise Financial and T. Rowe Price. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for RECS and 0.50% for TDVG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TDVG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.81 vs 1.77), 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.