RMIF vs. RDFI

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RMIF (LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF) and RDFI (Rareview Dynamic Fixed Income ETF) are both Multisector Bonds funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, RMIF returned 3.05% vs 8.58% for RDFI. A 0.56 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RMIF charges 1.38%/yr vs 3.69%/yr for RDFI.

Performance

RMIF vs. RDFI - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF (RMIF) and Rareview Dynamic Fixed Income ETF (RDFI). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RMIF achieves a -0.85% return, which is significantly lower than RDFI's 1.30% return.

RMIF

• 1D: -0.12%
• 1M: 0.30%
• YTD: -0.85%
• 6M: -0.51%
• 1Y: 3.05%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RDFI

• 1D: -0.53%
• 1M: -0.20%
• YTD: 1.30%
• 6M: 1.38%
• 1Y: 8.58%
• 3Y*: 10.47%
• 5Y*: 2.68%
• 10Y*: —

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

RMIF vs. RDFI - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
RMIF LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF	-0.85%	4.36%	7.00%	4.16%
RDFI Rareview Dynamic Fixed Income ETF	1.30%	9.83%	13.15%	5.82%

Correlation

The correlation between RMIF and RDFI is 0.58, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.58
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 12, 2023	0.56

The correlation between RMIF and RDFI has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.56 to 0.58 - a consistent structural relationship.

RMIF vs. RDFI - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RMIF	RDFI
Utilities	76.7%	3.7%
Healthcare	13.8%	0.0%
Technology	9.4%	1.7%
Communication Services	0.1%	0.1%
Basic Materials	-	0.3%
Consumer Cyclical	-	0.4%
Consumer Defensive	-	0.1%
Energy	-	32.0%
Financial Services	-	57.4%
Industrials	-	2.0%
Real Estate	-	2.2%

Return for Risk

RMIF vs. RDFI — Risk / Return Rank

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

RMIF

RMIF Risk / Return Rank: 30
RMIF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 33
RMIF Sortino Ratio Rank: 32
RMIF Omega Ratio Rank: 33
RMIF Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
RMIF Martin Ratio Rank: 26

RDFI

RDFI Risk / Return Rank: 31
RDFI Sharpe Ratio Rank: 34
RDFI Sortino Ratio Rank: 32
RDFI Omega Ratio Rank: 37
RDFI Calmar Ratio Rank: 23
RDFI Martin Ratio Rank: 29

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.

RMIF vs. RDFI - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF (RMIF) and Rareview Dynamic Fixed Income ETF (RDFI). 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.

	RMIF	RDFI	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.17	1.22	-0.05
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.70	1.71	-0.01
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.24	-0.03
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.30	1.08	+0.22
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	3.58	4.10	-0.52
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RMIF vs. RDFI - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RMIF Sharpe Ratio is 1.17, which is comparable to the RDFI Sharpe Ratio of 1.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RMIF and RDFI, 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

	RMIF	RDFI	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.17	1.22	-0.05
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.33	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.90	0.76	+1.14

Drawdowns

RMIF vs. RDFI - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RMIF drawdown since its inception was -3.01%, smaller than the maximum RDFI drawdown of -23.71%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RMIF and RDFI.

Drawdown Indicators

	RMIF	RDFI	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-3.01%	-23.71%	+20.70%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-2.37%	-8.01%	+5.64%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-10.41%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-23.71%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.31%	-3.22%	+1.91%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-0.38%	-7.21%	+6.83%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	0.86%	2.10%	-1.24%

Volatility

RMIF vs. RDFI - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF (RMIF) is 0.72%, while Rareview Dynamic Fixed Income ETF (RDFI) has a volatility of 2.34%. This indicates that RMIF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RDFI based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RMIF	RDFI	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	0.72%	2.34%	-1.62%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	1.99%	6.24%	-4.25%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.63%	7.05%	-4.42%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	2.59%	8.15%	-5.56%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	2.59%	7.96%	-5.37%

RMIF vs. RDFI - Expense Ratio Comparison

RMIF has a 1.38% expense ratio, which is lower than RDFI's 3.69% expense ratio.

Dividends

RMIF vs. RDFI - Dividend Comparison

RMIF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 5.30%, less than RDFI's 8.34% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
RDFI Rareview Dynamic Fixed Income ETF	8.34%	8.17%	8.14%	7.38%	4.70%	6.78%	1.01%
RMIF LHA Risk-Managed Income ETF	5.30%	5.70%	6.61%	3.70%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RMIF and RDFI in my portfolio?

RMIF and RDFI have a correlation of 0.58, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RMIF or RDFI?

RDFI has higher volatility (2.34%) compared to RMIF (0.72%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RMIF dropped -3.01% vs RDFI's -23.71%.

Which ETF is better, RMIF or RDFI?

On 1-year performance, RDFI leads with 8.58% vs 3.05% for RMIF. On fees, RMIF is cheaper at 1.38% per year. On volatility, RMIF has been the lower-risk option at 0.72%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RMIF or RDFI?

Over the 1-year period, RDFI has performed better with a 8.58% return vs 3.05%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RMIF or RDFI?

RMIF is cheaper with a 1.38% expense ratio, compared with 3.69% for RDFI.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RMIF or RDFI?

RDFI has the higher dividend yield at 8.34%, compared with 5.30% for RMIF.

What is the main difference between RMIF and RDFI?

They also come from different issuers: Little Harbor Advisors and Rareview Funds. Their fees differ too: 1.38% for RMIF and 3.69% for RDFI.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RDFI currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.22 vs 1.17), 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.