PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
RFCI vs. AMLP
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

RFCI vs. AMLP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in RiverFront Dynamic Core Income ETF (RFCI) and Alerian MLP ETF (AMLP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RFCI achieves a 0.13% return, which is significantly lower than AMLP's 16.31% return.


RFCI

1D
-0.30%
1M
0.47%
YTD
0.13%
6M
0.05%
1Y
4.60%
3Y*
4.55%
5Y*
1.22%
10Y*

AMLP

1D
-0.27%
1M
-0.57%
YTD
16.31%
6M
14.89%
1Y
17.06%
3Y*
20.15%
5Y*
16.90%
10Y*
6.76%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

RFCI vs. AMLP - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
RFCI
RiverFront Dynamic Core Income ETF
0.13%6.85%2.64%5.97%-9.27%-1.48%6.48%8.69%-1.30%3.14%
AMLP
Alerian MLP ETF
16.31%5.78%22.76%21.40%25.47%39.09%-32.26%5.99%-12.67%-7.89%

Correlation

The correlation between RFCI and AMLP is -0.13, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

-0.13

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.07

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.06

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 20, 2016

-0.00

The correlation between RFCI and AMLP shifts across timeframes, from -0.13 (1 year) to 0.07 (3 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

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

RFCI vs. AMLP — Risk / Return Rank

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

RFCI
RFCI Risk / Return Rank: 3636
Overall Rank
RFCI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3737
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RFCI Sortino Ratio Rank: 3636
Sortino Ratio Rank
RFCI Omega Ratio Rank: 3535
Omega Ratio Rank
RFCI Calmar Ratio Rank: 3636
Calmar Ratio Rank
RFCI Martin Ratio Rank: 3535
Martin Ratio Rank

AMLP
AMLP Risk / Return Rank: 3939
Overall Rank
AMLP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4040
Sharpe Ratio Rank
AMLP Sortino Ratio Rank: 3939
Sortino Ratio Rank
AMLP Omega Ratio Rank: 3737
Omega Ratio Rank
AMLP Calmar Ratio Rank: 3838
Calmar Ratio Rank
AMLP Martin Ratio Rank: 3939
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

RFCI vs. AMLP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for RiverFront Dynamic Core Income ETF (RFCI) and Alerian MLP ETF (AMLP). 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.


RFCIAMLPDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

1.31

1.45

-0.14

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

1.88

2.03

-0.15

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.23

1.25

-0.02

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

1.74

1.92

-0.17

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

5.23

6.37

-1.15

RFCI vs. AMLP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RFCI Sharpe Ratio is 1.31, which is comparable to the AMLP Sharpe Ratio of 1.45. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RFCI and AMLP, 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...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


RFCIAMLPDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.31

1.45

-0.14

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.24

0.85

-0.61

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.24

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.42

0.22

+0.19

Drawdowns

RFCI vs. AMLP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RFCI drawdown since its inception was -14.18%, smaller than the maximum AMLP drawdown of -77.19%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RFCI and AMLP.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


RFCIAMLPDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-14.18%

-77.19%

+63.01%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-2.65%

-8.94%

+6.29%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-5.10%

-14.27%

+9.17%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-13.46%

-20.92%

+7.46%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-72.62%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.38%

-4.10%

+2.72%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.23%

-17.40%

+14.17%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.88%

2.68%

-1.80%

Volatility

RFCI vs. AMLP - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for RiverFront Dynamic Core Income ETF (RFCI) is 1.29%, while Alerian MLP ETF (AMLP) has a volatility of 4.91%. This indicates that RFCI experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than AMLP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


RFCIAMLPDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

1.29%

4.91%

-3.62%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

2.70%

8.66%

-5.96%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.53%

11.90%

-8.37%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

5.13%

19.98%

-14.85%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

4.95%

27.68%

-22.73%

RFCI vs. AMLP - Expense Ratio Comparison

RFCI has a 0.54% expense ratio, which is lower than AMLP's 0.90% expense ratio.


Dividends

RFCI vs. AMLP - Dividend Comparison

RFCI's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.54%, less than AMLP's 7.64% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
AMLP
Alerian MLP ETF
7.64%8.36%7.70%7.86%7.70%8.55%12.31%9.12%9.29%7.97%8.09%9.84%
RFCI
RiverFront Dynamic Core Income ETF
4.54%4.55%4.30%3.55%2.26%3.45%2.04%2.66%2.76%2.03%1.97%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


RFCI and AMLP have a correlation of -0.13, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

AMLP has higher volatility (4.91%) compared to RFCI (1.29%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RFCI dropped -14.18% vs AMLP's -77.19%.

On 5-year performance, AMLP leads with 16.90% vs 1.22% for RFCI. On fees, RFCI is cheaper at 0.54% per year. On volatility, RFCI has been the lower-risk option at 1.29%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, AMLP has performed better with a 16.90% return vs 1.22%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

RFCI is cheaper with a 0.54% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for AMLP.

AMLP has the higher dividend yield at 7.64%, compared with 4.54% for RFCI.

RFCI is categorized as Multisector Bonds, while AMLP is MLPs. Their fees differ too: 0.54% for RFCI and 0.90% for AMLP.

AMLP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.45 vs 1.31), 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 RFCI and AMLP

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