RFDA vs. BIBL

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

RFDA (RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF) and BIBL (Inspire 100 ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. RFDA is actively managed, while BIBL is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, RFDA returned 12.74%/yr vs 10.29%/yr for BIBL. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. RFDA charges 0.52%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for BIBL.

Performance

RFDA vs. BIBL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF (RFDA) and Inspire 100 ETF (BIBL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RFDA achieves a 10.33% return, which is significantly lower than BIBL's 24.90% return.

RFDA

• 1D: -0.39%
• 1M: -0.03%
• YTD: 10.33%
• 6M: 9.16%
• 1Y: 25.01%
• 3Y*: 18.64%
• 5Y*: 12.74%
• 10Y*: 13.35%

BIBL

• 1D: 0.27%
• 1M: 4.70%
• YTD: 24.90%
• 6M: 23.10%
• 1Y: 38.99%
• 3Y*: 22.52%
• 5Y*: 10.29%
• 10Y*: —

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

RFDA vs. BIBL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
RFDA RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF	10.33%	16.42%	20.12%	16.98%	-8.58%	25.94%	11.26%	27.15%	-9.27%	4.54%
BIBL Inspire 100 ETF	24.90%	17.27%	12.49%	17.87%	-23.26%	27.44%	22.62%	29.68%	-7.64%	4.42%

Correlation

The correlation between RFDA and BIBL is 0.68, 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	0.68
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.80
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.83
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 31, 2017	0.86

The correlation between RFDA and BIBL shifts across timeframes, from 0.68 (1 year) to 0.86 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

RFDA vs. BIBL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RFDA	BIBL
Technology	21.1%	31.9%
Financial Services	14.4%	8.5%
Energy	11.7%	6.0%
Healthcare	9.7%	4.1%
Industrials	8.6%	27.2%
Communication Services	8.3%	-
Consumer Cyclical	7.4%	0.3%
Consumer Defensive	7.0%	0.4%
Real Estate	4.9%	13.7%
Utilities	4.8%	3.3%
Basic Materials	1.9%	4.3%

Return for Risk

RFDA vs. BIBL — Risk / Return Rank

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

RFDA

RFDA Risk / Return Rank: 81
RFDA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 77
RFDA Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
RFDA Omega Ratio Rank: 77
RFDA Calmar Ratio Rank: 88
RFDA Martin Ratio Rank: 87

BIBL

BIBL Risk / Return Rank: 84
BIBL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 83
BIBL Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
BIBL Omega Ratio Rank: 78
BIBL Calmar Ratio Rank: 86
BIBL Martin Ratio Rank: 90

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.

RFDA vs. BIBL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF (RFDA) and Inspire 100 ETF (BIBL). 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.

	RFDA	BIBL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.15	2.39	-0.24
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.98	3.17	-0.19
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.40	1.41	-0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.61	4.38	+0.23
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	16.42	18.61	-2.19

RFDA vs. BIBL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RFDA Sharpe Ratio is 2.15, which is comparable to the BIBL Sharpe Ratio of 2.39. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RFDA and BIBL, 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

RFDA vs. BIBL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RFDA drawdown since its inception was -34.60%, roughly equal to the maximum BIBL drawdown of -36.12%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RFDA and BIBL.

Drawdown Indicators

	RFDA	BIBL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-34.60%	-36.12%	+1.52%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.45%	-8.94%	+3.49%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.35%	-20.60%	+1.25%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-19.35%	-30.85%	+11.50%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-34.60%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.06%	-1.92%	-0.14%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.73%	-7.00%	+3.27%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.53%	2.10%	-0.57%

Volatility

RFDA vs. BIBL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF (RFDA) is 3.21%, while Inspire 100 ETF (BIBL) has a volatility of 6.81%. This indicates that RFDA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BIBL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RFDA	BIBL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.21%	6.81%	-3.60%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.78%	13.65%	-4.87%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.71%	16.44%	-4.73%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.75%	19.76%	-4.01%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.87%	21.11%	-4.24%

RFDA vs. BIBL - Expense Ratio Comparison

RFDA has a 0.52% expense ratio, which is higher than BIBL's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

RFDA vs. BIBL - Dividend Comparison

RFDA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.81%, more than BIBL's 0.94% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
BIBL Inspire 100 ETF	0.94%	1.01%	0.92%	1.02%	0.98%	17.87%	1.67%	1.30%	1.49%	0.31%	0.00%
RFDA RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF	1.81%	1.89%	2.23%	2.68%	3.57%	1.44%	1.62%	1.87%	2.44%	1.90%	0.98%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RFDA and BIBL in my portfolio?

RFDA and BIBL have a correlation of 0.68, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RFDA or BIBL?

BIBL has higher volatility (6.81%) compared to RFDA (3.21%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RFDA dropped -34.60% vs BIBL's -36.12%.

Which ETF is better, RFDA or BIBL?

On 5-year performance, RFDA leads with 12.74% vs 10.29% for BIBL. On fees, BIBL is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, RFDA has been the lower-risk option at 3.21%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RFDA or BIBL?

Over the 5-year period, RFDA has performed better with a 12.74% return vs 10.29%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RFDA or BIBL?

BIBL is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.52% for RFDA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RFDA or BIBL?

RFDA has the higher dividend yield at 1.81%, compared with 0.94% for BIBL.

What is the main difference between RFDA and BIBL?

They also come from different issuers: SS&C and Inspire. Their fees differ too: 0.52% for RFDA and 0.35% for BIBL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BIBL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.39 vs 2.15), 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.