RPHS vs. MFUL

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RPHS (Regents Park Hedged Market Strategy ETF) and MFUL (Mindful Conservative ETF) are both Diversified Portfolio funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, RPHS returned 15.26%/yr vs 4.96%/yr for MFUL. A 0.59 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RPHS charges 0.75%/yr vs 1.10%/yr for MFUL.

Performance

RPHS vs. MFUL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Regents Park Hedged Market Strategy ETF (RPHS) and Mindful Conservative ETF (MFUL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RPHS achieves a 6.79% return, which is significantly higher than MFUL's 3.28% return.

RPHS

• 1D: -0.44%
• 1M: 4.34%
• YTD: 6.79%
• 6M: 6.98%
• 1Y: 19.53%
• 3Y*: 15.26%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

MFUL

• 1D: -0.28%
• 1M: 1.45%
• YTD: 3.28%
• 6M: 3.33%
• 1Y: 7.13%
• 3Y*: 4.96%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RPHS vs. MFUL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
RPHS Regents Park Hedged Market Strategy ETF	6.79%	11.74%	17.84%	11.36%	-14.01%
MFUL Mindful Conservative ETF	3.28%	4.51%	5.36%	2.24%	-6.77%

Correlation

The correlation between RPHS and MFUL is 0.82, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.82
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.70
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 1, 2022	0.59

Over the past year, RPHS and MFUL have become more correlated (0.82) than their long-term average of 0.59, meaning their price movements have been converging.

RPHS vs. MFUL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RPHS	MFUL
Technology	33.6%	25.8%
Financial Services	12.4%	10.7%
Communication Services	10.5%	8.4%
Consumer Cyclical	10.0%	8.7%
Healthcare	9.5%	8.4%
Industrials	8.5%	9.9%
Consumer Defensive	5.3%	6.7%
Energy	4.0%	8.0%
Utilities	2.5%	5.5%
Real Estate	2.0%	2.4%
Basic Materials	1.9%	5.5%

Return for Risk

RPHS vs. MFUL — Risk / Return Rank

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

RPHS

RPHS Risk / Return Rank: 55
RPHS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
RPHS Sortino Ratio Rank: 56
RPHS Omega Ratio Rank: 55
RPHS Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
RPHS Martin Ratio Rank: 58

MFUL

MFUL Risk / Return Rank: 52
MFUL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 54
MFUL Sortino Ratio Rank: 54
MFUL Omega Ratio Rank: 58
MFUL Calmar Ratio Rank: 43
MFUL Martin Ratio Rank: 50

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.

RPHS vs. MFUL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Regents Park Hedged Market Strategy ETF (RPHS) and Mindful Conservative ETF (MFUL). 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.

	RPHS	MFUL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.87	1.82	+0.05
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.65	2.59	+0.06
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.35	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.51	2.13	+0.38
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.09	8.24	+1.85
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RPHS vs. MFUL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RPHS Sharpe Ratio is 1.87, which is comparable to the MFUL Sharpe Ratio of 1.82. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RPHS and MFUL, 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

	RPHS	MFUL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.87	1.82	+0.05
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.65	0.01	+0.65

Drawdowns

RPHS vs. MFUL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RPHS drawdown since its inception was -15.77%, roughly equal to the maximum MFUL drawdown of -16.41%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RPHS and MFUL.

Drawdown Indicators

	RPHS	MFUL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.77%	-16.41%	+0.64%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.81%	-3.36%	-4.45%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-10.84%	-4.74%	-6.10%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.44%	-0.46%	+0.02%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.97%	-9.50%	+3.53%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.94%	0.87%	+1.07%

Volatility

RPHS vs. MFUL - Volatility Comparison

Regents Park Hedged Market Strategy ETF (RPHS) has a higher volatility of 2.55% compared to Mindful Conservative ETF (MFUL) at 1.46%. This indicates that RPHS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than MFUL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RPHS	MFUL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.55%	1.46%	+1.09%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.32%	3.23%	+4.09%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.48%	3.93%	+6.55%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.37%	4.24%	+7.13%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.37%	4.24%	+7.13%

RPHS vs. MFUL - Expense Ratio Comparison

RPHS has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is lower than MFUL's 1.10% expense ratio.

Dividends

RPHS vs. MFUL - Dividend Comparison

RPHS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 10.42%, more than MFUL's 3.01% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
MFUL Mindful Conservative ETF	3.01%	3.31%	2.59%	5.00%	0.29%
RPHS Regents Park Hedged Market Strategy ETF	10.42%	11.13%	3.68%	5.23%	1.29%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RPHS and MFUL in my portfolio?

RPHS and MFUL have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RPHS or MFUL?

RPHS has higher volatility (2.55%) compared to MFUL (1.46%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RPHS dropped -15.77% vs MFUL's -16.41%.

Which ETF is better, RPHS or MFUL?

On 3-year performance, RPHS leads with 15.26% vs 4.96% for MFUL. On fees, RPHS is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, MFUL has been the lower-risk option at 1.46%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RPHS or MFUL?

Over the 3-year period, RPHS has performed better with a 15.26% return vs 4.96%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RPHS or MFUL?

RPHS is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 1.10% for MFUL.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RPHS or MFUL?

RPHS has the higher dividend yield at 10.42%, compared with 3.01% for MFUL.

What is the main difference between RPHS and MFUL?

They also come from different issuers: Regents Park and Mohr Funds. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for RPHS and 1.10% for MFUL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RPHS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.87 vs 1.82), 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.