RFFC vs. BFOR

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

RFFC (ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF) and BFOR (ALPS Barron's 400 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RFFC is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund actively managed by SS&C, while BFOR is a Mid Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the Barron's 400 Index. RFFC is actively managed, while BFOR is passively managed. Over the past 10 years, RFFC returned 12.66%/yr vs 12.56%/yr for BFOR. Their correlation of 0.88 means they have usually moved in the same direction. RFFC charges 0.48%/yr vs 0.65%/yr for BFOR.

Performance

RFFC vs. BFOR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF (RFFC) and ALPS Barron's 400 ETF (BFOR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RFFC achieves a 13.17% return, which is significantly lower than BFOR's 16.49% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with RFFC having a 12.66% annualized return and BFOR not far behind at 12.56%.

RFFC

• 1D: 1.00%
• 1M: 0.70%
• 6M: 7.66%
• YTD: 13.17%
• 1Y: 25.29%
• 3Y*: 20.49%
• 5Y*: 11.88%
• 10Y*: 12.66%
• ALL TIME*: 12.74%

BFOR

• 1D: 1.26%
• 1M: 0.64%
• 6M: 11.32%
• YTD: 16.49%
• 1Y: 25.45%
• 3Y*: 18.22%
• 5Y*: 10.97%
• 10Y*: 12.56%
• ALL TIME*: 11.64%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
BFOR ALPS Barron's 400 ETF	$723.94K	$634.98K	$457.05K
RFFC ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF	$84.66K	$66.37K	$69.76K

RFFC vs. BFOR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
RFFC ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF	13.17%	16.83%	23.51%	19.50%	-14.58%	22.33%	12.48%	24.77%	-10.23%	21.02%
BFOR ALPS Barron's 400 ETF	16.49%	13.85%	17.81%	18.19%	-15.92%	30.71%	17.60%	21.30%	-13.86%	19.37%

Correlation

The correlation between RFFC and BFOR is 0.84, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.84
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.85
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.89
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.	0.89
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 7, 2016	0.88

The correlation between RFFC and BFOR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.84 to 0.89 - a consistent structural relationship.

RFFC vs. BFOR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RFFC	BFOR
Technology	32.4%	20.9%
Industrials	13.4%	16.4%
Healthcare	12.5%	11.9%
Financial Services	11.0%	21.8%
Consumer Cyclical	8.8%	10.9%
Communication Services	8.0%	3.5%
Energy	4.4%	6.4%
Consumer Defensive	2.6%	4.0%
Utilities	2.5%	1.8%
Basic Materials	2.3%	2.4%
Real Estate	2.2%	-

Return for Risk

RFFC vs. BFOR — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

RFFC

RFFC Risk / Return Rank: 80
RFFC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
RFFC Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
RFFC Omega Ratio Rank: 79
RFFC Calmar Ratio Rank: 73
RFFC Martin Ratio Rank: 83

BFOR

BFOR Risk / Return Rank: 74
BFOR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
BFOR Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
BFOR Omega Ratio Rank: 68
BFOR Calmar Ratio Rank: 76
BFOR Martin Ratio Rank: 77

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

RFFC vs. BFOR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF (RFFC) and ALPS Barron's 400 ETF (BFOR). 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.

	RFFC	BFOR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.03	1.73	+0.30
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.86	2.55	+0.31
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.36	1.30	+0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.75	2.85	-0.10
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.26	10.38	+1.88

RFFC vs. BFOR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RFFC Sharpe Ratio is 2.03, which is comparable to the BFOR Sharpe Ratio of 1.73. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RFFC and BFOR, 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

RFFC vs. BFOR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RFFC drawdown since its inception was -36.26%, smaller than the maximum BFOR drawdown of -41.27%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RFFC and BFOR.

Drawdown Indicators

	RFFC	BFOR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-36.26%	-41.27%	+5.01%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.25%	-8.98%	-0.27%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.45%	-21.91%	+3.46%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-22.29%	-25.93%	+3.64%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-36.26%	-41.27%	+5.01%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.96%	-6.36%	+1.40%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.07%	2.46%	-0.39%

Volatility

RFFC vs. BFOR - Volatility Comparison

ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF (RFFC) and ALPS Barron's 400 ETF (BFOR) have volatilities of 3.28% and 3.31%, 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.

Volatility by Period

	RFFC	BFOR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.28%	3.31%	-0.03%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.86%	10.68%	-0.82%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.57%	14.82%	-2.25%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.33%	19.41%	-3.08%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.95%	20.35%	-2.40%

RFFC vs. BFOR - Expense Ratio Comparison

RFFC has a 0.48% expense ratio, which is lower than BFOR's 0.65% expense ratio.

Dividends

RFFC vs. BFOR - Dividend Comparison

RFFC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.62%, more than BFOR's 0.51% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BFOR ALPS Barron's 400 ETF	0.51%	0.60%	0.69%	1.26%	1.68%	0.92%	0.98%	0.69%	0.94%	0.60%	0.78%	0.86%
RFFC ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF	0.62%	0.78%	1.05%	1.35%	1.41%	0.71%	1.79%	1.34%	1.36%	0.93%	0.66%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RFFC and BFOR in my portfolio?

RFFC and BFOR have a correlation of 0.84, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RFFC or BFOR?

BFOR has higher volatility (3.31%) compared to RFFC (3.28%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RFFC dropped -36.26% vs BFOR's -41.27%.

Which ETF is better, RFFC or BFOR?

On 10-year performance, RFFC leads with 12.66% vs 12.56% for BFOR. On fees, RFFC is cheaper at 0.48% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RFFC or BFOR?

Over the 10-year period, RFFC has performed better with a 12.66% return vs 12.56%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RFFC or BFOR?

RFFC is cheaper with a 0.48% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for BFOR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RFFC or BFOR?

RFFC has the higher dividend yield at 0.62%, compared with 0.51% for BFOR.

What is the main difference between RFFC and BFOR?

RFFC is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while BFOR is Mid Cap Blend Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.48% for RFFC and 0.65% for BFOR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RFFC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.03 vs 1.73), 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.