RPHS vs. RULE

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RPHS (Regents Park Hedged Market Strategy ETF) and RULE (Adaptive Core ETF) are both Diversified Portfolio funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, RPHS returned 15.26%/yr vs 20.38%/yr for RULE. A 0.64 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RPHS charges 0.75%/yr vs 1.10%/yr for RULE.

Performance

RPHS vs. RULE - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Regents Park Hedged Market Strategy ETF (RPHS) and Adaptive Core ETF (RULE). 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 lower than RULE's 45.39% return.

RPHS

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

RULE

• 1D: 0.66%
• 1M: 21.60%
• YTD: 45.39%
• 6M: 45.86%
• 1Y: 52.19%
• 3Y*: 20.38%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RPHS vs. RULE - 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%
RULE Adaptive Core ETF	45.39%	4.60%	7.59%	6.29%	-14.32%

Correlation

The correlation between RPHS and RULE is 0.77, 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	0.77
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.74
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 1, 2022	0.64

The correlation between RPHS and RULE shifts across timeframes, from 0.64 (all time) to 0.77 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

RPHS vs. RULE - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RPHS	RULE
Technology	33.6%	54.4%
Financial Services	12.4%	5.7%
Communication Services	10.5%	5.0%
Consumer Cyclical	10.0%	3.2%
Healthcare	9.5%	6.4%
Industrials	8.5%	13.2%
Consumer Defensive	5.3%	0.8%
Energy	4.0%	2.4%
Utilities	2.5%	0.0%
Real Estate	2.0%	0.0%
Basic Materials	1.9%	9.0%

Return for Risk

RPHS vs. RULE — 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

RULE

RULE Risk / Return Rank: 79
RULE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 80
RULE Sortino Ratio Rank: 77
RULE Omega Ratio Rank: 76
RULE Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
RULE Martin Ratio Rank: 83

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. RULE - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Regents Park Hedged Market Strategy ETF (RPHS) and Adaptive Core ETF (RULE). 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	RULE	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.87	2.59	-0.72
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.65	3.47	-0.82
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.46	-0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.51	4.15	-1.64
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.09	16.93	-6.83
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. RULE - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RPHS Sharpe Ratio is 1.87, which is comparable to the RULE Sharpe Ratio of 2.59. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RPHS and RULE, 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	RULE	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.87	2.59	-0.72
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.65	0.47	+0.19

Drawdowns

RPHS vs. RULE - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RPHS drawdown since its inception was -15.77%, smaller than the maximum RULE drawdown of -30.48%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RPHS and RULE.

Drawdown Indicators

	RPHS	RULE	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.77%	-30.48%	+14.71%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.81%	-12.65%	+4.84%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-10.84%	-20.21%	+9.37%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.44%	0.00%	-0.44%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.97%	-14.98%	+9.01%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.94%	3.09%	-1.15%

Volatility

RPHS vs. RULE - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Regents Park Hedged Market Strategy ETF (RPHS) is 2.55%, while Adaptive Core ETF (RULE) has a volatility of 9.59%. This indicates that RPHS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RULE based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RPHS	RULE	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.55%	9.59%	-7.04%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.32%	17.54%	-10.22%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.48%	20.25%	-9.77%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.37%	14.83%	-3.46%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.37%	14.83%	-3.46%

RPHS vs. RULE - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

RPHS vs. RULE - Dividend Comparison

RPHS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 10.42%, while RULE has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
RPHS Regents Park Hedged Market Strategy ETF	10.42%	11.13%	3.68%	5.23%	1.29%
RULE Adaptive Core ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	2.01%	0.01%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RPHS and RULE in my portfolio?

RPHS and RULE have a correlation of 0.77, 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 RULE?

RULE has higher volatility (9.59%) compared to RPHS (2.55%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RPHS dropped -15.77% vs RULE's -30.48%.

Which ETF is better, RPHS or RULE?

On 3-year performance, RULE leads with 20.38% vs 15.26% for RPHS. On fees, RPHS is cheaper at 0.75% per year. On volatility, RPHS has been the lower-risk option at 2.55%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RPHS or RULE?

Over the 3-year period, RULE has performed better with a 20.38% return vs 15.26%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RPHS or RULE?

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

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

RPHS has the higher dividend yield at 10.42%, compared with 0.00% for RULE.

What is the main difference between RPHS and RULE?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RULE currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.59 vs 1.87), 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.