RFFC vs. ESN

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

RFFC (ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF) and ESN (Essential 40 Stock ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. RFFC is actively managed, while ESN is passively managed. Over the past year, RFFC returned 25.29% vs 28.79% for ESN. Their 0.78 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. RFFC charges 0.48%/yr vs 0.70%/yr for ESN.

Performance

RFFC vs. ESN - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF (RFFC) and Essential 40 Stock ETF (ESN). 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 ESN's 17.69% return.

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%

ESN

• 1D: 0.90%
• 1M: 0.63%
• 6M: 12.36%
• YTD: 17.69%
• 1Y: 28.79%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 17.00%

*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)
ESN Essential 40 Stock ETF	$2.27M	$1.62M	$1.62M
RFFC ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF	$84.66K	$66.37K	$69.76K

RFFC vs. ESN - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
RFFC ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF	13.17%	16.83%	-1.52%
ESN Essential 40 Stock ETF	17.69%	16.52%	-3.53%

Correlation

The correlation between RFFC and ESN is 0.75, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.75
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 21, 2024	0.78

The correlation between RFFC and ESN has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.75 to 0.78 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

RFFC vs. ESN — 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

ESN

ESN Risk / Return Rank: 94
ESN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 95
ESN Sortino Ratio Rank: 94
ESN Omega Ratio Rank: 93
ESN Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
ESN Martin Ratio Rank: 93

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. ESN - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF (RFFC) and Essential 40 Stock ETF (ESN). 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	ESN	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.03	2.91	-0.88
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.86	4.00	-1.14
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.36	1.51	-0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.75	4.50	-1.76
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.26	18.06	-5.81

RFFC vs. ESN - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RFFC Sharpe Ratio is 2.03, which is lower than the ESN Sharpe Ratio of 2.91. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RFFC and ESN, 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. ESN - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RFFC drawdown since its inception was -36.26%, which is greater than ESN's maximum drawdown of -13.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RFFC and ESN.

Drawdown Indicators

	RFFC	ESN	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-36.26%	-13.60%	-22.66%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.25%	-6.42%	-2.83%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.45%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-22.29%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-36.26%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.96%	-1.80%	-3.16%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.07%	1.60%	+0.47%

Volatility

RFFC vs. ESN - Volatility Comparison

ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF (RFFC) has a higher volatility of 3.28% compared to Essential 40 Stock ETF (ESN) at 2.69%. This indicates that RFFC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ESN based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RFFC	ESN	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.28%	2.69%	+0.59%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.86%	7.51%	+2.35%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.57%	9.97%	+2.60%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.33%	13.04%	+3.29%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.95%	13.04%	+4.91%

RFFC vs. ESN - Expense Ratio Comparison

RFFC has a 0.48% expense ratio, which is lower than ESN's 0.70% expense ratio.

Dividends

RFFC vs. ESN - Dividend Comparison

RFFC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.62%, less than ESN's 0.77% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
ESN Essential 40 Stock ETF	0.77%	0.91%	0.76%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
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%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RFFC and ESN in my portfolio?

RFFC and ESN have a correlation of 0.75, 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 ESN?

RFFC has higher volatility (3.28%) compared to ESN (2.69%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RFFC dropped -36.26% vs ESN's -13.60%.

Which ETF is better, RFFC or ESN?

On 1-year performance, ESN leads with 28.79% vs 25.29% for RFFC. On fees, RFFC is cheaper at 0.48% per year. On volatility, ESN has been the lower-risk option at 2.69%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RFFC or ESN?

Over the 1-year period, ESN has performed better with a 28.79% return vs 25.29%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RFFC or ESN?

RFFC is cheaper with a 0.48% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for ESN.

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

ESN has the higher dividend yield at 0.77%, compared with 0.62% for RFFC.

What is the main difference between RFFC and ESN?

They also come from different issuers: SS&C and KKM. Their fees differ too: 0.48% for RFFC and 0.70% for ESN.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ESN currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.91 vs 2.03), 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.