RPHS vs. RAA

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

RPHS (Regents Park Hedged Market Strategy ETF) and RAA (SMI 3Fourteen REAL Asset Allocation ETF) are both Diversified Portfolio funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, RPHS returned 13.51% vs 16.48% for RAA. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. RPHS charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for RAA.

Performance

RPHS vs. RAA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Regents Park Hedged Market Strategy ETF (RPHS) and SMI 3Fourteen REAL Asset Allocation ETF (RAA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RPHS achieves a 5.19% return, which is significantly lower than RAA's 7.39% return.

RPHS

• 1D: 0.00%
• 1M: -0.63%
• 6M: 4.43%
• YTD: 5.19%
• 1Y: 13.51%
• 3Y*: 13.17%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RAA

• 1D: -0.72%
• 1M: -1.78%
• 6M: 4.74%
• YTD: 7.39%
• 1Y: 16.48%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RPHS vs. RAA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
RPHS Regents Park Hedged Market Strategy ETF	5.19%	10.66%
RAA SMI 3Fourteen REAL Asset Allocation ETF	7.39%	11.92%

Correlation

The correlation between RPHS and RAA is 0.83, 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	0.83
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 26, 2025	0.83

The correlation between RPHS and RAA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.83 to 0.83 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

RPHS vs. RAA — Risk / Return Rank

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

RPHS

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

RAA

RAA Risk / Return Rank: 62
RAA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
RAA Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
RAA Omega Ratio Rank: 58
RAA Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
RAA Martin Ratio Rank: 65

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. RAA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Regents Park Hedged Market Strategy ETF (RPHS) and SMI 3Fourteen REAL Asset Allocation ETF (RAA). 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.

	RPHS	RAA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.25	1.60	-0.36
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.78	2.20	-0.41
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.23	1.29	-0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.68	2.80	-1.12
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.35	9.05	-2.70

RPHS vs. RAA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RPHS Sharpe Ratio is 1.25, which is comparable to the RAA Sharpe Ratio of 1.60. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RPHS and RAA, 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

RPHS vs. RAA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RPHS drawdown since its inception was -16.51%, which is greater than RAA's maximum drawdown of -11.96%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RPHS and RAA.

Drawdown Indicators

	RPHS	RAA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.51%	-11.96%	-4.55%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.81%	-5.91%	-1.90%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-10.84%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.94%	-3.68%	+1.74%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.21%	-1.58%	-4.63%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.07%	1.82%	+0.25%

Volatility

RPHS vs. RAA - Volatility Comparison

Regents Park Hedged Market Strategy ETF (RPHS) and SMI 3Fourteen REAL Asset Allocation ETF (RAA) have volatilities of 2.90% and 2.92%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RPHS	RAA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.90%	2.92%	-0.02%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.69%	8.36%	-0.67%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.57%	10.32%	+0.25%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.39%	12.73%	-1.34%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.39%	12.73%	-1.34%

RPHS vs. RAA - Expense Ratio Comparison

RPHS has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is lower than RAA's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

RPHS vs. RAA - Dividend Comparison

RPHS has not paid dividends to shareholders, while RAA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.14%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
RAA SMI 3Fourteen REAL Asset Allocation ETF	2.14%	2.14%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RPHS Regents Park Hedged Market Strategy ETF	34.69%	11.13%	3.68%	5.23%	1.29%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RPHS and RAA in my portfolio?

RPHS and RAA have a correlation of 0.83, 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 RAA?

RAA has higher volatility (2.92%) compared to RPHS (2.90%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RPHS dropped -16.51% vs RAA's -11.96%.

Which ETF is better, RPHS or RAA?

On 1-year performance, RAA leads with 16.48% vs 13.51% for RPHS. On fees, RPHS is cheaper at 0.75% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RPHS or RAA?

Over the 1-year period, RAA has performed better with a 16.48% return vs 13.51%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RPHS or RAA?

RPHS is cheaper with a 0.75% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for RAA.

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

RPHS has the higher dividend yield at 34.69%, compared with 2.14% for RAA.

What is the main difference between RPHS and RAA?

They also come from different issuers: Regents Park and SMI Advisory Services. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for RPHS and 0.85% for RAA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RAA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.60 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.