RFFC vs. GXLC
RFFC (ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF) and GXLC (Global X U.S. 500 ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. RFFC is actively managed, while GXLC is passively managed. Their correlation of 0.93 suggests significant overlap in exposure. RFFC charges 0.48%/yr vs 0.02%/yr for GXLC.
Performance
RFFC vs. GXLC - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, RFFC achieves a 10.13% return, which is significantly higher than GXLC's 8.31% return.
RFFC
- 1D
- -0.84%
- 1M
- 0.61%
- YTD
- 10.13%
- 6M
- 9.43%
- 1Y
- 27.11%
- 3Y*
- 20.79%
- 5Y*
- 11.91%
- 10Y*
- 12.66%
GXLC
- 1D
- -1.32%
- 1M
- -1.12%
- YTD
- 8.31%
- 6M
- 7.39%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
RFFC vs. GXLC - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
RFFC ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF | 10.13% | 4.88% |
GXLC Global X U.S. 500 ETF | 8.31% | 3.22% |
Correlation
The correlation between RFFC and GXLC is 0.93, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 24, 2025 | 0.93 |
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
RFFC vs. GXLC — Risk / Return Rank
RFFC
GXLC
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
RFFC vs. GXLC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF (RFFC) and Global X U.S. 500 ETF (GXLC). 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 | GXLC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.39 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.94 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 13.37 | — | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
RFFC vs. GXLC - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum RFFC drawdown since its inception was -36.26%, which is greater than GXLC's maximum drawdown of -9.08%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RFFC and GXLC.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| RFFC | GXLC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -36.26% | -9.08% | -27.18% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -9.25% | — | — |
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 DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.55% | -3.05% | +1.50% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -5.00% | -1.54% | -3.46% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.03% | — | — |
Volatility
RFFC vs. GXLC - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| RFFC | GXLC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 4.25% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 9.88% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 12.45% | 13.85% | -1.40% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.33% | 13.85% | +2.48% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 18.01% | 13.85% | +4.16% |
RFFC vs. GXLC - Expense Ratio Comparison
RFFC has a 0.48% expense ratio, which is higher than GXLC's 0.02% expense ratio.
Dividends
RFFC vs. GXLC - Dividend Comparison
RFFC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.64%, less than GXLC's 0.65% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GXLC Global X U.S. 500 ETF | 0.65% | 0.30% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
RFFC ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF | 0.64% | 0.78% | 1.05% | 1.35% | 1.41% | 0.71% | 1.79% | 1.34% | 1.36% | 0.93% | 0.66% |
Frequently Asked Questions
With a correlation of 0.93, RFFC and GXLC move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.
On fees, GXLC is cheaper at 0.02% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
GXLC is cheaper with a 0.02% expense ratio, compared with 0.48% for RFFC.
RFFC and GXLC have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.64%.
They also come from different issuers: SS&C and Global X. Their fees differ too: 0.48% for RFFC and 0.02% for GXLC.
Find the right allocation for RFFC and GXLC
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