RFFC vs. EQL

Last updated Jul 15, 2026

RFFC (ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF) and EQL (ALPS Equal Sector Weight ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds from SS&C. RFFC is actively managed, while EQL is passively managed. Over the past 10 years, RFFC returned 12.98%/yr vs 12.32%/yr for EQL. Their correlation of 0.88 suggests significant overlap in exposure. RFFC charges 0.48%/yr vs 0.27%/yr for EQL.

Performance

RFFC vs. EQL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF (RFFC) and ALPS Equal Sector Weight ETF (EQL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RFFC achieves a 12.37% return, which is significantly higher than EQL's 10.67% return. Over the past 10 years, RFFC has outperformed EQL with an annualized return of 12.98%, while EQL has yielded a comparatively lower 12.32% annualized return.

RFFC

• 1D: 0.23%
• 1M: 1.81%
• 6M: 9.26%
• YTD: 12.37%
• 1Y: 25.00%
• 3Y*: 20.03%
• 5Y*: 12.09%
• 10Y*: 12.98%

EQL

• 1D: 0.08%
• 1M: 1.11%
• 6M: 7.81%
• YTD: 10.67%
• 1Y: 16.65%
• 3Y*: 15.14%
• 5Y*: 10.78%
• 10Y*: 12.32%

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

RFFC vs. EQL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
RFFC ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF	12.37%	16.83%	23.51%	19.50%	-14.58%	22.33%	12.48%	24.77%	-10.23%	21.02%
EQL ALPS Equal Sector Weight ETF	10.67%	13.09%	16.44%	16.87%	-10.72%	29.32%	10.87%	27.87%	-6.12%	18.37%

Correlation

The correlation between RFFC and EQL 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	0.90
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.88
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 7, 2016	0.88

The correlation between RFFC and EQL shifts across timeframes, from 0.79 (1 year) to 0.90 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

RFFC vs. EQL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RFFC	EQL
Technology	33.0%	12.3%
Industrials	12.2%	8.5%
Healthcare	11.7%	8.7%
Financial Services	10.9%	8.6%
Consumer Cyclical	9.3%	10.7%
Communication Services	8.7%	8.8%
Energy	4.8%	8.0%
Consumer Defensive	2.7%	8.6%
Utilities	2.4%	8.4%
Basic Materials	2.3%	8.0%
Real Estate	2.0%	9.2%

Return for Risk

RFFC vs. EQL — Risk / Return Rank

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

RFFC

RFFC Risk / Return Rank: 77
RFFC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 81
RFFC Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
RFFC Omega Ratio Rank: 77
RFFC Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
RFFC Martin Ratio Rank: 81

EQL

EQL Risk / Return Rank: 68
EQL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
EQL Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
EQL Omega Ratio Rank: 67
EQL Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
EQL Martin Ratio Rank: 72

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.

RFFC vs. EQL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF (RFFC) and ALPS Equal Sector Weight ETF (EQL). 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	EQL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.03	1.76	+0.27
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.85	2.47	+0.39
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.36	1.32	+0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.71	2.70	+0.01
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.30	10.38	+1.92

RFFC vs. EQL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RFFC Sharpe Ratio is 2.03, which is comparable to the EQL Sharpe Ratio of 1.76. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RFFC and EQL, 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. EQL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RFFC drawdown since its inception was -36.26%, roughly equal to the maximum EQL drawdown of -35.65%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RFFC and EQL.

Drawdown Indicators

	RFFC	EQL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-36.26%	-35.65%	-0.61%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.25%	-6.19%	-3.06%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.45%	-15.07%	-3.38%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-22.29%	-19.24%	-3.05%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-36.26%	-35.65%	-0.61%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.62%	-0.20%	-0.42%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.97%	-3.24%	-1.73%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.04%	1.61%	+0.43%

Volatility

RFFC vs. EQL - Volatility Comparison

ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF (RFFC) has a higher volatility of 2.99% compared to ALPS Equal Sector Weight ETF (EQL) at 2.41%. This indicates that RFFC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EQL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RFFC	EQL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.99%	2.41%	+0.58%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.86%	7.08%	+2.78%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.39%	9.51%	+2.88%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.33%	14.55%	+1.78%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.96%	16.49%	+1.47%

RFFC vs. EQL - Expense Ratio Comparison

RFFC has a 0.48% expense ratio, which is higher than EQL's 0.27% expense ratio.

Dividends

RFFC vs. EQL - Dividend Comparison

RFFC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.63%, less than EQL's 1.36% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EQL ALPS Equal Sector Weight ETF	1.36%	1.73%	1.78%	1.96%	2.14%	1.69%	2.29%	1.95%	2.39%	1.97%	2.89%	2.07%
RFFC ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF	0.63%	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 EQL in my portfolio?

RFFC and EQL 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.

Which is riskier, RFFC or EQL?

RFFC has higher volatility (2.99%) compared to EQL (2.41%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RFFC dropped -36.26% vs EQL's -35.65%.

Which ETF is better, RFFC or EQL?

On 10-year performance, RFFC leads with 12.98% vs 12.32% for EQL. On fees, EQL is cheaper at 0.27% per year. On volatility, EQL has been the lower-risk option at 2.41%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RFFC or EQL?

Over the 10-year period, RFFC has performed better with a 12.98% return vs 12.32%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RFFC or EQL?

EQL is cheaper with a 0.27% expense ratio, compared with 0.48% for RFFC.

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

EQL has the higher dividend yield at 1.36%, compared with 0.63% for RFFC.

What is the main difference between RFFC and EQL?

Their fees differ too: 0.48% for RFFC and 0.27% for EQL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RFFC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.03 vs 1.76), 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.