ROE vs. ABEQ

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

ROE (Astoria US Equal Weight Quality Kings ETF) and ABEQ (Absolute Select Value ETF) are both Large Cap Value Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, ROE returned 37.99% vs 8.87% for ABEQ. A 0.60 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ROE charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for ABEQ.

Performance

ROE vs. ABEQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Astoria US Equal Weight Quality Kings ETF (ROE) and Absolute Select Value ETF (ABEQ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ROE achieves a 20.98% return, which is significantly higher than ABEQ's 3.44% return.

ROE

• 1D: -0.04%
• 1M: 8.10%
• YTD: 20.98%
• 6M: 21.56%
• 1Y: 37.99%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

ABEQ

• 1D: -0.17%
• 1M: -0.34%
• YTD: 3.44%
• 6M: 3.43%
• 1Y: 8.87%
• 3Y*: 11.57%
• 5Y*: 7.06%
• 10Y*: —

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

ROE vs. ABEQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
ROE Astoria US Equal Weight Quality Kings ETF	20.98%	17.20%	18.34%	4.29%
ABEQ Absolute Select Value ETF	3.44%	15.32%	12.68%	0.41%

Correlation

The correlation between ROE and ABEQ is 0.53, 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	0.53
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 2, 2023	0.60

The correlation between ROE and ABEQ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.53 to 0.60 - a consistent structural relationship.

ROE vs. ABEQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ROE	ABEQ
Technology	36.1%	4.4%
Financial Services	11.7%	24.8%
Communication Services	10.6%	3.0%
Industrials	9.8%	8.3%
Consumer Cyclical	9.4%	-
Healthcare	8.7%	7.2%
Consumer Defensive	4.7%	10.9%
Energy	3.5%	10.3%
Utilities	1.9%	1.4%
Real Estate	1.9%	-
Basic Materials	1.8%	17.0%

Return for Risk

ROE vs. ABEQ — Risk / Return Rank

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

ROE

ROE Risk / Return Rank: 83
ROE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
ROE Sortino Ratio Rank: 82
ROE Omega Ratio Rank: 80
ROE Calmar Ratio Rank: 83
ROE Martin Ratio Rank: 89

ABEQ

ABEQ Risk / Return Rank: 25
ABEQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 27
ABEQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 26
ABEQ Omega Ratio Rank: 26
ABEQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 24
ABEQ Martin Ratio Rank: 22

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.

ROE vs. ABEQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Astoria US Equal Weight Quality Kings ETF (ROE) and Absolute Select Value ETF (ABEQ). 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.

	ROE	ABEQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.74	1.00	+1.74
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.69	1.46	+2.23
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.48	1.18	+0.30
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.41	1.13	+3.28
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	19.92	2.78	+17.14
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ROE vs. ABEQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ROE Sharpe Ratio is 2.74, which is higher than the ABEQ Sharpe Ratio of 1.00. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ROE and ABEQ, 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

	ROE	ABEQ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.74	1.00	+1.74
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.66	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.39	0.56	+0.83

Drawdowns

ROE vs. ABEQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ROE drawdown since its inception was -19.10%, smaller than the maximum ABEQ drawdown of -27.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ROE and ABEQ.

Drawdown Indicators

	ROE	ABEQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.10%	-27.82%	+8.72%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.66%	-7.89%	-0.77%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-7.95%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-17.26%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.04%	-7.43%	+7.39%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.59%	-4.07%	+1.48%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.91%	3.20%	-1.29%

Volatility

ROE vs. ABEQ - Volatility Comparison

Astoria US Equal Weight Quality Kings ETF (ROE) has a higher volatility of 3.79% compared to Absolute Select Value ETF (ABEQ) at 1.98%. This indicates that ROE's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ABEQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ROE	ABEQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.79%	1.98%	+1.81%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.66%	6.69%	+3.97%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.94%	8.91%	+5.03%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.78%	10.81%	+4.97%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.78%	13.84%	+1.94%

ROE vs. ABEQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

ROE has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is lower than ABEQ's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

ROE vs. ABEQ - Dividend Comparison

ROE's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.94%, less than ABEQ's 1.21% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
ABEQ Absolute Select Value ETF	1.21%	1.25%	1.48%	2.60%	1.20%	0.60%	0.60%
ROE Astoria US Equal Weight Quality Kings ETF	0.94%	0.97%	1.18%	0.68%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ROE and ABEQ in my portfolio?

ROE and ABEQ have a correlation of 0.53, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ROE or ABEQ?

ROE has higher volatility (3.79%) compared to ABEQ (1.98%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ROE dropped -19.10% vs ABEQ's -27.82%.

Which ETF is better, ROE or ABEQ?

On 1-year performance, ROE leads with 37.99% vs 8.87% for ABEQ. On fees, ROE is cheaper at 0.49% per year. On volatility, ABEQ has been the lower-risk option at 1.98%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ROE or ABEQ?

Over the 1-year period, ROE has performed better with a 37.99% return vs 8.87%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ROE or ABEQ?

ROE is cheaper with a 0.49% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for ABEQ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ROE or ABEQ?

ABEQ has the higher dividend yield at 1.21%, compared with 0.94% for ROE.

What is the main difference between ROE and ABEQ?

They also come from different issuers: Astoria and Absolute Investment Advisers LLC. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for ROE and 0.85% for ABEQ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ROE currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.74 vs 1.00), 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.