RMCA vs. FAAR

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

RMCA (Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF) and FAAR (First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RMCA is a Municipal Bonds fund actively managed by Rockefeller, while FAAR is a Commodities fund actively managed by First Trust. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, RMCA returned 7.55% vs 26.86% for FAAR. At a correlation of -0.07, they often move in opposite directions. RMCA charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for FAAR.

Performance

RMCA vs. FAAR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF (RMCA) and First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF (FAAR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RMCA achieves a 2.87% return, which is significantly lower than FAAR's 20.23% return.

RMCA

• 1D: 0.04%
• 1M: 1.75%
• YTD: 2.87%
• 6M: 3.16%
• 1Y: 7.55%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FAAR

• 1D: -0.05%
• 1M: -4.34%
• YTD: 20.23%
• 6M: 19.92%
• 1Y: 26.86%
• 3Y*: 10.91%
• 5Y*: 7.89%
• 10Y*: 4.79%

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

RMCA vs. FAAR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
RMCA Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF	2.87%	2.35%	-0.24%
FAAR First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF	20.23%	8.07%	0.38%

Correlation

The correlation between RMCA and FAAR is -0.16, 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	-0.16
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 13, 2024	-0.07

Return for Risk

RMCA vs. FAAR — Risk / Return Rank

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

RMCA

RMCA Risk / Return Rank: 70
RMCA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
RMCA Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
RMCA Omega Ratio Rank: 79
RMCA Calmar Ratio Rank: 67
RMCA Martin Ratio Rank: 61

FAAR

FAAR Risk / Return Rank: 70
FAAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
FAAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 65
FAAR Omega Ratio Rank: 58
FAAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
FAAR Martin Ratio Rank: 78

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.

RMCA vs. FAAR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF (RMCA) and First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF (FAAR). 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.

	RMCA	FAAR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.10	2.02	+0.08
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.18	2.89	+0.29
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.45	1.35	+0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.23	4.75	-1.52
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.74	14.70	-3.95

RMCA vs. FAAR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RMCA Sharpe Ratio is 2.10, which is comparable to the FAAR Sharpe Ratio of 2.02. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RMCA and FAAR, 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

RMCA vs. FAAR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RMCA drawdown since its inception was -5.95%, smaller than the maximum FAAR drawdown of -18.03%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RMCA and FAAR.

Drawdown Indicators

	RMCA	FAAR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-5.95%	-18.03%	+12.08%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.35%	-5.68%	+3.33%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-11.54%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-18.03%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-18.03%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-5.43%	+5.43%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.59%	-7.82%	+6.23%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.70%	1.89%	-1.19%

Volatility

RMCA vs. FAAR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF (RMCA) is 0.86%, while First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF (FAAR) has a volatility of 2.47%. This indicates that RMCA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FAAR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RMCA	FAAR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.86%	2.47%	-1.61%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	2.47%	9.68%	-7.21%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.62%	13.37%	-9.75%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	5.33%	12.95%	-7.62%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	5.33%	11.53%	-6.20%

RMCA vs. FAAR - Expense Ratio Comparison

RMCA has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is lower than FAAR's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

RMCA vs. FAAR - Dividend Comparison

RMCA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.33%, less than FAAR's 9.57% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
FAAR First Trust Alternative Absolute Return Strategy ETF	9.57%	11.63%	3.45%	3.20%	5.82%	6.49%	3.05%	1.02%	0.58%	2.83%
RMCA Rockefeller California Municipal Bond ETF	4.33%	4.51%	1.20%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RMCA and FAAR in my portfolio?

RMCA and FAAR have a correlation of -0.16, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RMCA or FAAR?

FAAR has higher volatility (2.47%) compared to RMCA (0.86%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RMCA dropped -5.95% vs FAAR's -18.03%.

Which ETF is better, RMCA or FAAR?

On 1-year performance, FAAR leads with 26.86% vs 7.55% for RMCA. On fees, RMCA is cheaper at 0.55% per year. On volatility, RMCA has been the lower-risk option at 0.86%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RMCA or FAAR?

Over the 1-year period, FAAR has performed better with a 26.86% return vs 7.55%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RMCA or FAAR?

RMCA is cheaper with a 0.55% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for FAAR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RMCA or FAAR?

FAAR has the higher dividend yield at 9.57%, compared with 4.33% for RMCA.

What is the main difference between RMCA and FAAR?

RMCA is categorized as Municipal Bonds, while FAAR is Commodities. They also come from different issuers: Rockefeller and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for RMCA and 0.95% for FAAR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RMCA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.10 vs 2.02), 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.