PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
RFEM vs. FEM
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

RFEM vs. FEM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust RiverFront Dynamic Emerging Markets ETF (RFEM) and First Trust Emerging Markets AlphaDEX Fund (FEM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RFEM achieves a 18.11% return, which is significantly higher than FEM's 16.29% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with RFEM having a 9.39% annualized return and FEM not far ahead at 9.60%.


RFEM

1D
-3.04%
1M
0.28%
YTD
18.11%
6M
18.72%
1Y
36.93%
3Y*
22.77%
5Y*
8.62%
10Y*
9.39%

FEM

1D
-3.61%
1M
-2.59%
YTD
16.29%
6M
15.74%
1Y
35.75%
3Y*
19.09%
5Y*
6.91%
10Y*
9.60%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

RFEM vs. FEM - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
RFEM
First Trust RiverFront Dynamic Emerging Markets ETF
18.11%27.71%10.85%20.78%-19.05%0.97%8.19%20.33%-18.80%35.73%
FEM
First Trust Emerging Markets AlphaDEX Fund
16.29%28.36%3.01%10.84%-14.24%7.40%-1.68%20.55%-15.51%41.05%

Correlation

The correlation between RFEM and FEM is 0.82, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.


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

0.82

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

0.82

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

0.81

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.83

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 15, 2016

0.83

The correlation between RFEM and FEM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.83 - a consistent structural relationship.

RFEM vs. FEM - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
RFEM
FEM

Technology

36.3%
28.4%

Financial Services

21.0%
6.4%

Consumer Cyclical

12.7%
5.7%

Industrials

8.0%
19.8%

Energy

5.9%
12.9%

Communication Services

5.0%
4.6%

Basic Materials

3.9%
7.8%

Consumer Defensive

2.9%
2.9%

Healthcare

2.4%
2.8%

Utilities

1.3%
6.1%

Real Estate

0.7%
2.6%

Technology

RFEM
36.3%
FEM
28.4%

Financial Services

RFEM
21.0%
FEM
6.4%

Consumer Cyclical

RFEM
12.7%
FEM
5.7%

Industrials

RFEM
8.0%
FEM
19.8%

Energy

RFEM
5.9%
FEM
12.9%

Communication Services

RFEM
5.0%
FEM
4.6%

Basic Materials

RFEM
3.9%
FEM
7.8%

Consumer Defensive

RFEM
2.9%
FEM
2.9%

Healthcare

RFEM
2.4%
FEM
2.8%

Utilities

RFEM
1.3%
FEM
6.1%

Real Estate

RFEM
0.7%
FEM
2.6%

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

RFEM vs. FEM — Risk / Return Rank

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

RFEM
RFEM Risk / Return Rank: 6969
Overall Rank
RFEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6969
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RFEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 6565
Sortino Ratio Rank
RFEM Omega Ratio Rank: 6969
Omega Ratio Rank
RFEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 6969
Calmar Ratio Rank
RFEM Martin Ratio Rank: 7373
Martin Ratio Rank

FEM
FEM Risk / Return Rank: 6666
Overall Rank
FEM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6262
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FEM Sortino Ratio Rank: 5353
Sortino Ratio Rank
FEM Omega Ratio Rank: 6060
Omega Ratio Rank
FEM Calmar Ratio Rank: 7979
Calmar Ratio Rank
FEM Martin Ratio Rank: 7575
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.

RFEM vs. FEM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust RiverFront Dynamic Emerging Markets ETF (RFEM) and First Trust Emerging Markets AlphaDEX Fund (FEM). 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.


RFEMFEMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.14

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.31

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.38

1.34

+0.03

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.19

3.86

-0.67

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

12.49

13.27

-0.78

RFEM vs. FEM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RFEM Sharpe Ratio is 2.05, which is comparable to the FEM Sharpe Ratio of 1.90. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RFEM and FEM, 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...

Drawdowns

RFEM vs. FEM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RFEM drawdown since its inception was -42.22%, smaller than the maximum FEM drawdown of -46.23%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RFEM and FEM.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


RFEMFEMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-42.22%

-46.23%

+4.01%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-11.65%

-9.31%

-2.34%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-15.81%

-18.79%

+2.98%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-34.25%

-31.72%

-2.53%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-42.22%

-46.23%

+4.01%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-4.26%

-5.81%

+1.55%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-11.93%

-15.00%

+3.07%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.97%

2.70%

+0.27%

Volatility

RFEM vs. FEM - Volatility Comparison

First Trust RiverFront Dynamic Emerging Markets ETF (RFEM) and First Trust Emerging Markets AlphaDEX Fund (FEM) have volatilities of 8.40% and 8.76%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


RFEMFEMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

8.40%

8.76%

-0.36%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

15.94%

16.30%

-0.36%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

18.14%

18.88%

-0.74%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

18.15%

18.67%

-0.52%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

19.85%

20.97%

-1.12%

RFEM vs. FEM - Expense Ratio Comparison

RFEM has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than FEM's 0.80% expense ratio.


Dividends

RFEM vs. FEM - Dividend Comparison

RFEM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.73%, less than FEM's 2.67% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
FEM
First Trust Emerging Markets AlphaDEX Fund
2.67%3.13%3.66%4.96%6.15%4.15%2.68%3.31%3.52%2.45%2.25%3.61%
RFEM
First Trust RiverFront Dynamic Emerging Markets ETF
1.73%1.98%3.64%3.28%7.74%3.21%1.22%3.75%2.37%1.62%3.73%0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions


RFEM and FEM have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

FEM has higher volatility (8.76%) compared to RFEM (8.40%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RFEM dropped -42.22% vs FEM's -46.23%.

On 10-year performance, FEM leads with 9.60% vs 9.39% for RFEM. On fees, FEM is cheaper at 0.80% per year. On volatility, RFEM has been the lower-risk option at 8.40%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, FEM has performed better with a 9.60% return vs 9.39%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

FEM is cheaper with a 0.80% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for RFEM.

FEM has the higher dividend yield at 2.67%, compared with 1.73% for RFEM.

Their fees differ too: 0.95% for RFEM and 0.80% for FEM.

RFEM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.05 vs 1.90), 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 RFEM and FEM

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