RPAR vs. ELM

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

RPAR (RPAR Risk Parity ETF) and ELM (Elm Market Navigator ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RPAR is a Global Allocation fund actively managed by Toroso Investments, while ELM is a Tactical Allocation fund actively managed by Elm. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, RPAR returned 11.54% vs 16.21% for ELM. Their 0.70 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. RPAR charges 0.51%/yr vs 0.24%/yr for ELM.

Performance

RPAR vs. ELM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in RPAR Risk Parity ETF (RPAR) and Elm Market Navigator ETF (ELM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RPAR achieves a 2.65% return, which is significantly lower than ELM's 7.06% return.

RPAR

• 1D: -0.55%
• 1M: -1.99%
• 6M: -1.98%
• YTD: 2.65%
• 1Y: 11.54%
• 3Y*: 7.20%
• 5Y*: 0.20%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 3.72%

ELM

• 1D: 0.39%
• 1M: 0.02%
• 6M: 4.28%
• YTD: 7.06%
• 1Y: 16.21%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 13.11%

*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)
ELM Elm Market Navigator ETF	$351.63K	$455.82K	$575.19K
RPAR RPAR Risk Parity ETF	$342.76K	$300.17K	$486.62K

RPAR vs. ELM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
RPAR RPAR Risk Parity ETF	2.65%	13.03%
ELM Elm Market Navigator ETF	7.06%	11.88%

Correlation

The correlation between RPAR and ELM is 0.74, 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.	0.74
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 11, 2025	0.70

The correlation between RPAR and ELM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.70 to 0.74 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

RPAR vs. ELM — Risk / Return Rank

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

RPAR

RPAR Risk / Return Rank: 43
RPAR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 46
RPAR Sortino Ratio Rank: 44
RPAR Omega Ratio Rank: 44
RPAR Calmar Ratio Rank: 42
RPAR Martin Ratio Rank: 36

ELM

ELM Risk / Return Rank: 68
ELM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
ELM Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
ELM Omega Ratio Rank: 72
ELM Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
ELM Martin Ratio Rank: 69

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.

RPAR vs. ELM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for RPAR Risk Parity ETF (RPAR) and Elm Market Navigator ETF (ELM). 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.

	RPAR	ELM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.14	1.62	-0.48
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.62	2.26	-0.65
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	1.30	-0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.49	2.10	-0.62
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	3.68	8.42	-4.73

RPAR vs. ELM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RPAR Sharpe Ratio is 1.14, which is comparable to the ELM Sharpe Ratio of 1.62. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RPAR and ELM, 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

RPAR vs. ELM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RPAR drawdown since its inception was -30.16%, which is greater than ELM's maximum drawdown of -9.02%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RPAR and ELM.

Drawdown Indicators

	RPAR	ELM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-30.16%	-9.02%	-21.14%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.10%	-7.52%	-0.58%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-11.26%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-30.16%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.05%	-1.04%	-6.01%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.46%	-1.32%	-10.14%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.27%	1.88%	+1.39%

Volatility

RPAR vs. ELM - Volatility Comparison

RPAR Risk Parity ETF (RPAR) has a higher volatility of 2.71% compared to Elm Market Navigator ETF (ELM) at 2.24%. This indicates that RPAR's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ELM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RPAR	ELM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.71%	2.24%	+0.47%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.90%	8.17%	+0.73%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.56%	9.80%	+0.76%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.50%	10.26%	+2.24%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.65%	10.26%	+2.39%

RPAR vs. ELM - Expense Ratio Comparison

RPAR has a 0.51% expense ratio, which is higher than ELM's 0.24% expense ratio.

Dividends

RPAR vs. ELM - Dividend Comparison

RPAR's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.45%, less than ELM's 2.53% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
ELM Elm Market Navigator ETF	2.53%	2.71%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RPAR RPAR Risk Parity ETF	2.45%	2.55%	2.51%	3.16%	4.01%	2.02%	0.76%	0.23%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RPAR and ELM in my portfolio?

RPAR and ELM have a correlation of 0.74, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RPAR or ELM?

RPAR has higher volatility (2.71%) compared to ELM (2.24%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RPAR dropped -30.16% vs ELM's -9.02%.

Which ETF is better, RPAR or ELM?

On 1-year performance, ELM leads with 16.21% vs 11.54% for RPAR. On fees, ELM is cheaper at 0.24% per year. On volatility, ELM has been the lower-risk option at 2.24%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RPAR or ELM?

Over the 1-year period, ELM has performed better with a 16.21% return vs 11.54%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RPAR or ELM?

ELM is cheaper with a 0.24% expense ratio, compared with 0.51% for RPAR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RPAR or ELM?

ELM has the higher dividend yield at 2.53%, compared with 2.45% for RPAR.

What is the main difference between RPAR and ELM?

RPAR is categorized as Global Allocation, while ELM is Tactical Allocation. They also come from different issuers: Toroso Investments and Elm. Their fees differ too: 0.51% for RPAR and 0.24% for ELM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ELM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.62 vs 1.14), 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.