RND vs. EQL

Last updated Aug 6, 2026

RND (First Trust Bloomberg R&D Leaders ETF) and EQL (ALPS Equal Sector Weight ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds - RND tracks the Bloomberg R&D Leaders Select Index while EQL tracks the NYSE Equal Sector Weight Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, RND returned 21.47% vs 19.04% for EQL. Their 0.63 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. RND charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.27%/yr for EQL.

Performance

RND vs. EQL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Bloomberg R&D Leaders ETF (RND) and ALPS Equal Sector Weight ETF (EQL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RND achieves a 9.23% return, which is significantly lower than EQL's 12.36% return.

RND

• 1D: 0.14%
• 1M: 3.18%
• 6M: 13.62%
• YTD: 9.23%
• 1Y: 21.47%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 26.31%

EQL

• 1D: -0.25%
• 1M: 1.57%
• 6M: 7.31%
• YTD: 12.36%
• 1Y: 19.04%
• 3Y*: 15.88%
• 5Y*: 10.78%
• 10Y*: 12.45%
• ALL TIME*: 13.57%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
EQL ALPS Equal Sector Weight ETF	$3.29M	$2.86M	$2.72M
RND First Trust Bloomberg R&D Leaders ETF	$52.02K	$96.81K	$91.60K

RND vs. EQL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
RND First Trust Bloomberg R&D Leaders ETF	9.23%	22.38%	26.88%
EQL ALPS Equal Sector Weight ETF	12.36%	13.09%	11.71%

Correlation

The correlation between RND and EQL is 0.57, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.57
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 1, 2024	0.63

The correlation between RND and EQL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.57 to 0.63 - a consistent structural relationship.

RND vs. EQL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RND	EQL
Technology	44.2%	10.2%
Healthcare	15.0%	9.4%
Consumer Cyclical	14.9%	9.6%
Communication Services	12.8%	8.9%
Industrials	9.2%	9.3%
Financial Services	1.4%	9.1%
Consumer Defensive	1.4%	8.8%
Basic Materials	1.1%	8.0%
Energy	-	8.7%
Real Estate	-	8.7%
Utilities	-	9.4%

Return for Risk

RND vs. EQL — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

RND

RND Risk / Return Rank: 40
RND Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
RND Sortino Ratio Rank: 42
RND Omega Ratio Rank: 40
RND Calmar Ratio Rank: 35
RND Martin Ratio Rank: 39

EQL

EQL Risk / Return Rank: 79
EQL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 79
EQL Sortino Ratio Rank: 78
EQL Omega Ratio Rank: 78
EQL Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
EQL Martin Ratio Rank: 81

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

RND vs. EQL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Bloomberg R&D Leaders ETF (RND) and ALPS Equal Sector Weight ETF (EQL). 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.

	RND	EQL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.25	2.03	-0.77
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.78	2.83	-1.04
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.37	-0.15
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.39	3.09	-1.70
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	4.74	12.10	-7.35

RND vs. EQL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RND Sharpe Ratio is 1.25, which is lower than the EQL Sharpe Ratio of 2.03. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RND and EQL, 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

RND vs. EQL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RND drawdown since its inception was -23.52%, smaller than the maximum EQL drawdown of -35.65%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RND and EQL.

Drawdown Indicators

	RND	EQL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.52%	-35.65%	+12.13%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.56%	-6.19%	-9.37%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-15.07%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-19.24%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-35.65%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.25%	+0.25%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.67%	-3.23%	-0.44%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.54%	1.58%	+2.96%

Volatility

RND vs. EQL - Volatility Comparison

First Trust Bloomberg R&D Leaders ETF (RND) has a higher volatility of 5.71% compared to ALPS Equal Sector Weight ETF (EQL) at 2.41%. This indicates that RND's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than EQL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RND	EQL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.71%	2.41%	+3.30%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.56%	7.12%	+6.44%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.24%	9.43%	+7.81%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.12%	14.52%	+6.60%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.12%	16.49%	+4.63%

RND vs. EQL - Expense Ratio Comparison

RND has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than EQL's 0.27% expense ratio.

Dividends

RND vs. EQL - Dividend Comparison

RND has not paid dividends to shareholders, while EQL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.33%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EQL ALPS Equal Sector Weight ETF	1.33%	1.73%	1.78%	1.96%	2.14%	1.69%	2.29%	1.95%	2.39%	1.97%	2.89%	2.07%
RND First Trust Bloomberg R&D Leaders ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.04%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RND and EQL in my portfolio?

RND and EQL have a correlation of 0.57, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RND or EQL?

RND has higher volatility (5.71%) compared to EQL (2.41%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RND dropped -23.52% vs EQL's -35.65%.

Which ETF is better, RND or EQL?

On 1-year performance, RND leads with 21.47% vs 19.04% for EQL. On fees, EQL is cheaper at 0.27% per year. On volatility, EQL has been the lower-risk option at 2.41%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RND or EQL?

Over the 1-year period, RND has performed better with a 21.47% return vs 19.04%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RND or EQL?

EQL is cheaper with a 0.27% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for RND.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RND or EQL?

EQL has the higher dividend yield at 1.33%, compared with 0.00% for RND.

What is the main difference between RND and EQL?

RND tracks Bloomberg R&D Leaders Select Index, while EQL tracks NYSE Equal Sector Weight Index. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and SS&C. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for RND and 0.27% for EQL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EQL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.03 vs 1.25), 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.