RIGS vs. ACES
RIGS (RiverFront Strategic Income Fund) and ACES (ALPS Clean Energy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RIGS is a High Yield Bonds fund actively managed by SS&C, while ACES is a Alternative Energy Equities fund tracking the CIBC Atlas Clean Energy Index. RIGS is actively managed, while ACES is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, RIGS returned 2.13%/yr vs -8.73%/yr for ACES. At a 0.27 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. RIGS charges 0.48%/yr vs 0.55%/yr for ACES.
Performance
RIGS vs. ACES - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, RIGS achieves a 0.76% return, which is significantly lower than ACES's 28.72% return.
RIGS
- 1D
- -0.27%
- 1M
- 0.07%
- YTD
- 0.76%
- 6M
- 0.41%
- 1Y
- 3.91%
- 3Y*
- 4.62%
- 5Y*
- 2.13%
- 10Y*
- 3.15%
ACES
- 1D
- -2.84%
- 1M
- 17.92%
- YTD
- 28.72%
- 6M
- 27.36%
- 1Y
- 69.96%
- 3Y*
- -1.21%
- 5Y*
- -8.73%
- 10Y*
- —
RIGS vs. ACES - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RIGS RiverFront Strategic Income Fund | 0.76% | 4.63% | 4.45% | 6.07% | -5.72% | 1.93% | 3.58% | 7.60% | 1.08% |
ACES ALPS Clean Energy ETF | 28.72% | 25.44% | -26.71% | -20.04% | -28.44% | -19.44% | 140.33% | 51.70% | -9.63% |
Correlation
The correlation between RIGS and ACES is 0.07, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.07 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.20 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.26 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 2, 2018 | 0.27 |
The correlation between RIGS and ACES shifts across timeframes, from 0.07 (1 year) to 0.27 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.
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
RIGS vs. ACES — Risk / Return Rank
RIGS
ACES
RIGS vs. ACES - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for RiverFront Strategic Income Fund (RIGS) and ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES). 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.
| RIGS | ACES | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.76 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.12 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.09 | 1.33 | -0.24 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 0.86 | 4.03 | -3.17 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 2.06 | 10.16 | -8.10 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| RIGS | ACES | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.42 | 2.18 | -1.76 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.29 | -0.24 | +0.53 |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.41 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.45 | 0.22 | +0.24 |
Drawdowns
RIGS vs. ACES - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum RIGS drawdown since its inception was -15.31%, smaller than the maximum ACES drawdown of -79.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RIGS and ACES.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| RIGS | ACES | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -15.31% | -79.05% | +63.74% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -4.55% | -17.44% | +12.89% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -5.18% | -58.68% | +53.50% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -9.03% | -74.44% | +65.41% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -15.31% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.68% | -56.41% | +54.73% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -1.60% | -38.87% | +37.27% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 1.90% | 6.91% | -5.01% |
Volatility
RIGS vs. ACES - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for RiverFront Strategic Income Fund (RIGS) is 1.32%, while ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES) has a volatility of 9.99%. This indicates that RIGS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than ACES based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| RIGS | ACES | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 1.32% | 9.99% | -8.67% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 4.74% | 22.55% | -17.81% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 9.33% | 32.42% | -23.09% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 7.50% | 36.17% | -28.67% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 7.75% | 35.59% | -27.84% |
RIGS vs. ACES - Expense Ratio Comparison
RIGS has a 0.48% expense ratio, which is lower than ACES's 0.55% expense ratio.
Dividends
RIGS vs. ACES - Dividend Comparison
RIGS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.88%, more than ACES's 0.54% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ACES ALPS Clean Energy ETF | 0.54% | 0.70% | 1.10% | 1.44% | 1.08% | 0.71% | 0.56% | 1.79% | 0.34% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
RIGS RiverFront Strategic Income Fund | 4.88% | 4.84% | 4.49% | 3.48% | 2.71% | 2.47% | 3.77% | 3.87% | 4.54% | 4.45% | 4.46% | 3.61% |
Frequently Asked Questions
RIGS and ACES have a correlation of 0.07, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
ACES has higher volatility (9.99%) compared to RIGS (1.32%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RIGS dropped -15.31% vs ACES's -79.05%.
On 5-year performance, RIGS leads with 2.13% vs -8.73% for ACES. On fees, RIGS is cheaper at 0.48% per year. On volatility, RIGS has been the lower-risk option at 1.32%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, RIGS has performed better with a 2.13% return vs -8.73%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
RIGS is cheaper with a 0.48% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for ACES.
RIGS has the higher dividend yield at 4.88%, compared with 0.54% for ACES.
RIGS is categorized as High Yield Bonds, while ACES is Alternative Energy Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.48% for RIGS and 0.55% for ACES.
ACES currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.18 vs 0.42), 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.
Find the right allocation for RIGS and ACES
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