PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
RFDA vs. ENFR
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

RFDA vs. ENFR - Performance Comparison

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RFDA achieves a 11.40% return, which is significantly lower than ENFR's 24.60% return.


RFDA

1D
-0.92%
1M
4.27%
YTD
11.40%
6M
12.25%
1Y
29.49%
3Y*
19.19%
5Y*
13.17%
10Y*

ENFR

1D
0.10%
1M
-1.01%
YTD
24.60%
6M
24.41%
1Y
25.40%
3Y*
27.99%
5Y*
19.91%
10Y*
11.96%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

RFDA vs. ENFR - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
RFDA
RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF
11.40%16.42%20.12%16.98%-8.58%25.94%11.26%27.15%-9.27%19.86%
ENFR
Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF
24.60%5.88%42.17%15.63%17.48%39.97%-24.14%21.60%-18.67%-0.19%

Correlation

The correlation between RFDA and ENFR is 0.06, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.


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

0.06

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

0.41

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

0.53

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 8, 2016

0.53

Over the past year, the correlation between RFDA and ENFR has dropped to 0.06 - well below their long-term average of 0.53, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

RFDA vs. ENFR - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
RFDA
ENFR

Technology

19.9%

-

Financial Services

14.7%
0.2%

Energy

12.5%
98.8%

Industrials

8.9%
3.4%

Healthcare

8.8%

-

Communication Services

8.8%

-

Consumer Defensive

7.6%

-

Consumer Cyclical

7.0%

-

Real Estate

5.0%

-

Utilities

5.0%
1.0%

Basic Materials

1.8%

-

Technology

RFDA
19.9%
ENFR

-

Financial Services

RFDA
14.7%
ENFR
0.2%

Energy

RFDA
12.5%
ENFR
98.8%

Industrials

RFDA
8.9%
ENFR
3.4%

Healthcare

RFDA
8.8%
ENFR

-

Communication Services

RFDA
8.8%
ENFR

-

Consumer Defensive

RFDA
7.6%
ENFR

-

Consumer Cyclical

RFDA
7.0%
ENFR

-

Real Estate

RFDA
5.0%
ENFR

-

Utilities

RFDA
5.0%
ENFR
1.0%

Basic Materials

RFDA
1.8%
ENFR

-

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

RFDA vs. ENFR — Risk / Return Rank

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

RFDA
RFDA Risk / Return Rank: 8383
Overall Rank
RFDA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7878
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RFDA Sortino Ratio Rank: 7878
Sortino Ratio Rank
RFDA Omega Ratio Rank: 7979
Omega Ratio Rank
RFDA Calmar Ratio Rank: 9090
Calmar Ratio Rank
RFDA Martin Ratio Rank: 8989
Martin Ratio Rank

ENFR
ENFR Risk / Return Rank: 5050
Overall Rank
ENFR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5050
Sharpe Ratio Rank
ENFR Sortino Ratio Rank: 4848
Sortino Ratio Rank
ENFR Omega Ratio Rank: 4747
Omega Ratio Rank
ENFR Calmar Ratio Rank: 5959
Calmar Ratio Rank
ENFR Martin Ratio Rank: 4848
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.

RFDA vs. ENFR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF (RFDA) and Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF (ENFR). 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.


RFDAENFRDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.80

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+1.11

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.47

1.30

+0.17

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

5.44

2.95

+2.49

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

19.87

8.06

+11.81

RFDA vs. ENFR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RFDA Sharpe Ratio is 2.55, which is higher than the ENFR Sharpe Ratio of 1.75. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RFDA and ENFR, 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


RFDAENFRDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.55

1.75

+0.80

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.84

1.04

-0.20

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.49

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.79

0.34

+0.45

Drawdowns

RFDA vs. ENFR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RFDA drawdown since its inception was -34.60%, smaller than the maximum ENFR drawdown of -68.28%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RFDA and ENFR.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


RFDAENFRDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-34.60%

-68.28%

+33.68%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-5.45%

-8.64%

+3.19%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-19.35%

-15.58%

-3.77%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-19.35%

-20.29%

+0.94%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-62.64%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.92%

-4.95%

+4.03%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.74%

-15.98%

+12.24%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.49%

3.16%

-1.67%

Volatility

RFDA vs. ENFR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF (RFDA) is 2.66%, while Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF (ENFR) has a volatility of 6.18%. This indicates that RFDA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ENFR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


RFDAENFRDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.66%

6.18%

-3.52%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

8.47%

11.47%

-3.00%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

11.64%

14.64%

-3.00%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.73%

19.30%

-3.57%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.85%

24.69%

-7.84%

RFDA vs. ENFR - Expense Ratio Comparison

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


Dividends

RFDA vs. ENFR - Dividend Comparison

RFDA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.77%, less than ENFR's 4.03% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
ENFR
Alerian Energy Infrastructure ETF
4.03%4.77%4.41%5.48%5.23%7.86%7.57%5.81%3.98%2.98%3.31%3.34%
RFDA
RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF
1.77%1.89%2.23%2.68%3.57%1.44%1.62%1.87%2.44%1.90%0.98%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


RFDA and ENFR have a correlation of 0.06, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

ENFR has higher volatility (6.18%) compared to RFDA (2.66%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RFDA dropped -34.60% vs ENFR's -68.28%.

On 5-year performance, ENFR leads with 19.91% vs 13.17% for RFDA. On fees, ENFR is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, RFDA has been the lower-risk option at 2.66%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, ENFR has performed better with a 19.91% return vs 13.17%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

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

ENFR has the higher dividend yield at 4.03%, compared with 1.77% for RFDA.

RFDA is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while ENFR is Energy Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.52% for RFDA and 0.35% for ENFR.

RFDA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.55 vs 1.75), 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 RFDA and ENFR

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