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

Performance

RFDA vs. QUS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF (RFDA) and SPDR MSCI USA StrategicFactors ETF (QUS). 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 higher than QUS's 6.67% return.


RFDA

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

QUS

1D
-0.43%
1M
2.68%
YTD
6.67%
6M
6.93%
1Y
17.65%
3Y*
17.53%
5Y*
11.08%
10Y*
13.67%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

RFDA vs. QUS - 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%
QUS
SPDR MSCI USA StrategicFactors ETF
6.67%14.13%18.99%21.78%-14.15%26.72%12.40%32.45%-3.66%21.67%

Correlation

The correlation between RFDA and QUS 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

0.85

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

0.88

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

0.87

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

RFDA vs. QUS - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
RFDA
QUS

Technology

19.9%
26.3%

Financial Services

14.7%
14.6%

Energy

12.5%
4.6%

Industrials

8.9%
8.6%

Healthcare

8.8%
13.4%

Communication Services

8.8%
10.2%

Consumer Defensive

7.6%
9.2%

Consumer Cyclical

7.0%
5.8%

Real Estate

5.0%
1.4%

Utilities

5.0%
3.6%

Basic Materials

1.8%
2.3%

Technology

RFDA
19.9%
QUS
26.3%

Financial Services

RFDA
14.7%
QUS
14.6%

Energy

RFDA
12.5%
QUS
4.6%

Industrials

RFDA
8.9%
QUS
8.6%

Healthcare

RFDA
8.8%
QUS
13.4%

Communication Services

RFDA
8.8%
QUS
10.2%

Consumer Defensive

RFDA
7.6%
QUS
9.2%

Consumer Cyclical

RFDA
7.0%
QUS
5.8%

Real Estate

RFDA
5.0%
QUS
1.4%

Utilities

RFDA
5.0%
QUS
3.6%

Basic Materials

RFDA
1.8%
QUS
2.3%

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. QUS — 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

QUS
QUS Risk / Return Rank: 5757
Overall Rank
QUS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5656
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QUS Sortino Ratio Rank: 5858
Sortino Ratio Rank
QUS Omega Ratio Rank: 5555
Omega Ratio Rank
QUS Calmar Ratio Rank: 5252
Calmar Ratio Rank
QUS Martin Ratio Rank: 6363
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. QUS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF (RFDA) and SPDR MSCI USA StrategicFactors ETF (QUS). 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.


RFDAQUSDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.60

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.71

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.47

1.35

+0.12

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

5.44

2.59

+2.85

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

19.87

11.54

+8.33

RFDA vs. QUS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RFDA Sharpe Ratio is 2.55, which is higher than the QUS Sharpe Ratio of 1.95. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RFDA and QUS, 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


RFDAQUSDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

2.55

1.95

+0.60

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.84

0.78

+0.06

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.83

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.79

0.77

+0.02

Drawdowns

RFDA vs. QUS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RFDA drawdown since its inception was -34.60%, roughly equal to the maximum QUS drawdown of -33.78%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RFDA and QUS.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


RFDAQUSDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-34.60%

-33.78%

-0.82%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-5.45%

-6.85%

+1.40%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-19.35%

-13.94%

-5.41%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-19.35%

-22.30%

+2.95%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-33.78%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.92%

-0.50%

-0.42%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-3.74%

-3.70%

-0.04%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

1.49%

1.53%

-0.04%

Volatility

RFDA vs. QUS - Volatility Comparison

RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF (RFDA) has a higher volatility of 2.66% compared to SPDR MSCI USA StrategicFactors ETF (QUS) at 1.78%. This indicates that RFDA's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than QUS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


RFDAQUSDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

2.66%

1.78%

+0.88%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

8.47%

6.66%

+1.81%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

11.64%

9.09%

+2.55%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

15.73%

14.33%

+1.40%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

16.85%

16.42%

+0.43%

RFDA vs. QUS - Expense Ratio Comparison

RFDA has a 0.52% expense ratio, which is higher than QUS's 0.15% expense ratio.


Dividends

RFDA vs. QUS - Dividend Comparison

RFDA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.77%, more than QUS's 1.31% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
QUS
SPDR MSCI USA StrategicFactors ETF
1.31%1.38%1.49%1.57%1.68%1.27%1.73%1.81%2.12%1.86%2.07%1.48%
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 QUS 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.

RFDA has higher volatility (2.66%) compared to QUS (1.78%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RFDA dropped -34.60% vs QUS's -33.78%.

On 5-year performance, RFDA leads with 13.17% vs 11.08% for QUS. On fees, QUS is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, QUS has been the lower-risk option at 1.78%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, RFDA has performed better with a 13.17% return vs 11.08%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

QUS is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.52% for RFDA.

RFDA has the higher dividend yield at 1.77%, compared with 1.31% for QUS.

They also come from different issuers: SS&C and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.52% for RFDA and 0.15% for QUS.

RFDA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.55 vs 1.95), 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 QUS

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