RHTX vs. CAOS

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

RHTX (RH Tactical Outlook ETF) and CAOS (Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RHTX is a Tactical Allocation fund actively managed by Adaptive, while CAOS is a Options Trading fund actively managed by Alpha Architect. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, RHTX returned 16.13%/yr vs 4.27%/yr for CAOS. At a 0.04 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. RHTX charges 1.38%/yr vs 0.63%/yr for CAOS.

Performance

RHTX vs. CAOS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in RH Tactical Outlook ETF (RHTX) and Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RHTX achieves a 9.17% return, which is significantly higher than CAOS's 0.77% return.

RHTX

• 1D: 0.51%
• 1M: 2.62%
• YTD: 9.17%
• 6M: 10.74%
• 1Y: 25.95%
• 3Y*: 16.13%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CAOS

• 1D: -0.04%
• 1M: -0.05%
• YTD: 0.77%
• 6M: 0.63%
• 1Y: 1.85%
• 3Y*: 4.27%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RHTX vs. CAOS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
RHTX RH Tactical Outlook ETF	9.17%	15.42%	18.27%	3.39%
CAOS Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF	0.77%	2.55%	5.33%	7.97%

Correlation

The correlation between RHTX and CAOS is -0.25, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.25
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	-0.04
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 7, 2023	0.04

The correlation between RHTX and CAOS shifts across timeframes, from -0.25 (1 year) to 0.04 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

RHTX vs. CAOS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RHTX	CAOS
Technology	30.6%	33.1%
Industrials	13.5%	8.5%
Financial Services	12.6%	12.4%
Consumer Cyclical	9.8%	10.0%
Healthcare	9.0%	9.6%
Communication Services	6.9%	10.4%
Energy	4.2%	4.1%
Consumer Defensive	4.1%	5.4%
Real Estate	3.9%	2.0%
Basic Materials	2.9%	1.9%
Utilities	2.5%	2.6%

Return for Risk

RHTX vs. CAOS — Risk / Return Rank

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

RHTX

RHTX Risk / Return Rank: 47
RHTX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 51
RHTX Sortino Ratio Rank: 45
RHTX Omega Ratio Rank: 52
RHTX Calmar Ratio Rank: 42
RHTX Martin Ratio Rank: 45

CAOS

CAOS Risk / Return Rank: 40
CAOS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 35
CAOS Sortino Ratio Rank: 38
CAOS Omega Ratio Rank: 39
CAOS Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
CAOS Martin Ratio Rank: 39

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.

RHTX vs. CAOS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for RH Tactical Outlook ETF (RHTX) and Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS). 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.

	RHTX	CAOS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.73	1.22	+0.51
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.24	1.94	+0.30
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.25	+0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.04	2.45	-0.41
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.20	6.09	+1.11
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RHTX vs. CAOS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RHTX Sharpe Ratio is 1.73, which is higher than the CAOS Sharpe Ratio of 1.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RHTX and CAOS, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	RHTX	CAOS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.73	1.22	+0.51
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.31	1.21	-0.90

Drawdowns

RHTX vs. CAOS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RHTX drawdown since its inception was -24.68%, which is greater than CAOS's maximum drawdown of -3.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RHTX and CAOS.

Drawdown Indicators

	RHTX	CAOS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.68%	-3.60%	-21.08%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.77%	-0.76%	-12.01%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.73%	-3.60%	-15.13%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.87%	-1.11%	+0.24%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.62%	-0.90%	-8.72%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.61%	0.30%	+3.31%

Volatility

RHTX vs. CAOS - Volatility Comparison

RH Tactical Outlook ETF (RHTX) has a higher volatility of 4.06% compared to Alpha Architect Tail Risk ETF (CAOS) at 0.25%. This indicates that RHTX's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CAOS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RHTX	CAOS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.06%	0.25%	+3.81%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.50%	1.03%	+11.47%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.07%	1.52%	+13.55%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.03%	4.25%	+13.78%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.03%	4.25%	+13.78%

RHTX vs. CAOS - Expense Ratio Comparison

RHTX has a 1.38% expense ratio, which is higher than CAOS's 0.63% expense ratio.

Dividends

RHTX vs. CAOS - Dividend Comparison

Neither RHTX nor CAOS has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RHTX and CAOS in my portfolio?

RHTX and CAOS have a correlation of -0.25, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RHTX or CAOS?

RHTX has higher volatility (4.06%) compared to CAOS (0.25%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RHTX dropped -24.68% vs CAOS's -3.60%.

Which ETF is better, RHTX or CAOS?

On 3-year performance, RHTX leads with 16.13% vs 4.27% for CAOS. On fees, CAOS is cheaper at 0.63% per year. On volatility, CAOS has been the lower-risk option at 0.25%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RHTX or CAOS?

Over the 3-year period, RHTX has performed better with a 16.13% return vs 4.27%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RHTX or CAOS?

CAOS is cheaper with a 0.63% expense ratio, compared with 1.38% for RHTX.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RHTX or CAOS?

RHTX and CAOS have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.

What is the main difference between RHTX and CAOS?

RHTX is categorized as Tactical Allocation, while CAOS is Options Trading. They also come from different issuers: Adaptive and Alpha Architect. Their fees differ too: 1.38% for RHTX and 0.63% for CAOS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RHTX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.73 vs 1.22), 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.