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 0.94 means they have usually moved in the same direction. 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 13.17% return, which is significantly higher than GXLC's 11.54% 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%
GXLC
- 1D
- 1.34%
- 1M
- 1.54%
- 6M
- 9.67%
- YTD
- 11.54%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- —
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $25.69K | $21.89K | $18.29K | |
| $84.66K | $66.37K | $69.76K |
RFFC vs. GXLC - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
RFFC ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF | 13.17% | 4.88% |
GXLC Global X U.S. 500 ETF | 11.54% | 3.22% |
Correlation
The correlation between RFFC and GXLC is 0.94, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 24, 2025 | 0.94 |
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 | 1.36 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.75 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 12.26 | — | — |
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 | 0.00% | -0.16% | +0.16% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.96% | -1.57% | -3.39% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.07% | — | — |
Volatility
RFFC vs. GXLC - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| RFFC | GXLC | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.28% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 9.86% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 12.57% | 13.64% | -1.07% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 16.33% | 13.64% | +2.69% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 17.95% | 13.64% | +4.31% |
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 0.62%, less than GXLC's 0.63% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GXLC Global X U.S. 500 ETF | 0.63% | 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 | 0.62% | 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 0.94, 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.
GXLC has the higher dividend yield at 0.63%, compared with 0.62% for RFFC.
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