RFDA vs. FITZ
RFDA (RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF) and FITZ (Fitz-Gerald Must Have Portfolio ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. Both are actively managed. At a 0.30 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. RFDA charges 0.52%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for FITZ.
Performance
RFDA vs. FITZ - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
RFDA
- 1D
- 1.12%
- 1M
- 4.60%
- YTD
- 12.65%
- 6M
- 13.45%
- 1Y
- 31.38%
- 3Y*
- 19.75%
- 5Y*
- 13.42%
- 10Y*
- —
FITZ
- 1D
- -0.20%
- 1M
- —
- YTD
- —
- 6M
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
RFDA vs. FITZ - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
RFDA RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF | 2.09% |
FITZ Fitz-Gerald Must Have Portfolio ETF | -1.66% |
Correlation
The correlation between RFDA and FITZ is 0.30, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 29, 2026 | 0.30 |
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. FITZ — Risk / Return Rank
RFDA
FITZ
RFDA vs. FITZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF (RFDA) and Fitz-Gerald Must Have Portfolio ETF (FITZ). 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.
| RFDA | FITZ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.50 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 5.79 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 21.14 | — | — |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| RFDA | FITZ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 2.70 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.86 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.80 | -7.29 | +8.09 |
Drawdowns
RFDA vs. FITZ - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum RFDA drawdown since its inception was -34.60%, which is greater than FITZ's maximum drawdown of -1.97%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RFDA and FITZ.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| RFDA | FITZ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -34.60% | -1.97% | -32.63% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -5.45% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -19.35% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -19.35% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | 0.00% | -1.97% | +1.97% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -3.74% | -1.08% | -2.66% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.49% | — | — |
Volatility
RFDA vs. FITZ - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| RFDA | FITZ | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 2.75% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 8.53% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 11.67% | 8.74% | +2.93% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 15.74% | 8.74% | +7.00% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.85% | 8.74% | +8.11% |
RFDA vs. FITZ - Expense Ratio Comparison
RFDA has a 0.52% expense ratio, which is lower than FITZ's 0.75% expense ratio.
Dividends
RFDA vs. FITZ - Dividend Comparison
RFDA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.75%, while FITZ has not paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FITZ Fitz-Gerald Must Have Portfolio ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
RFDA RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF | 1.75% | 1.89% | 2.23% | 2.68% | 3.57% | 1.44% | 1.62% | 1.87% | 2.44% | 1.90% | 0.98% |
Frequently Asked Questions
RFDA and FITZ have a correlation of 0.30, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, RFDA is cheaper at 0.52% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
RFDA is cheaper with a 0.52% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for FITZ.
RFDA has the higher dividend yield at 1.75%, compared with 0.00% for FITZ.
They also come from different issuers: SS&C and Nicholas. Their fees differ too: 0.52% for RFDA and 0.75% for FITZ.
Find the right allocation for RFDA and FITZ
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