RULE vs. RAA

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

RULE (Adaptive Core ETF) and RAA (SMI 3Fourteen REAL Asset Allocation ETF) are both Diversified Portfolio funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, RULE returned 57.12% vs 21.28% for RAA. Their correlation of 0.84 suggests significant overlap in exposure. RULE charges 1.10%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for RAA.

Performance

RULE vs. RAA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Adaptive Core ETF (RULE) 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, RULE achieves a 49.82% return, which is significantly higher than RAA's 8.82% return.

RULE

• 1D: 2.20%
• 1M: 13.27%
• YTD: 49.82%
• 6M: 47.98%
• 1Y: 57.12%
• 3Y*: 21.26%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RAA

• 1D: -0.16%
• 1M: -0.64%
• YTD: 8.82%
• 6M: 8.51%
• 1Y: 21.28%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RULE vs. RAA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
RULE Adaptive Core ETF	49.82%	5.01%
RAA SMI 3Fourteen REAL Asset Allocation ETF	8.82%	11.92%

Correlation

The correlation between RULE and RAA 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 26, 2025	0.84

The correlation between RULE and RAA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

RULE vs. RAA — Risk / Return Rank

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

RULE

RULE Risk / Return Rank: 81
RULE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
RULE Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
RULE Omega Ratio Rank: 78
RULE Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
RULE Martin Ratio Rank: 86

RAA

RAA Risk / Return Rank: 69
RAA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
RAA Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
RAA Omega Ratio Rank: 68
RAA Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
RAA Martin Ratio Rank: 74

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.

RULE vs. RAA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Adaptive Core ETF (RULE) 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.

	RULE	RAA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.52	2.12	+0.40
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.23	2.86	+0.37
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.44	1.39	+0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.54	3.62	+0.92
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	17.58	13.63	+3.94

RULE vs. RAA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RULE Sharpe Ratio is 2.52, which is comparable to the RAA Sharpe Ratio of 2.12. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RULE 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

RULE vs. RAA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RULE drawdown since its inception was -30.48%, which is greater than RAA's maximum drawdown of -11.96%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RULE and RAA.

Drawdown Indicators

	RULE	RAA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-30.48%	-11.96%	-18.52%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.65%	-5.91%	-6.74%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.21%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-2.39%	+2.39%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-14.85%	-1.48%	-13.37%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.26%	1.56%	+1.70%

Volatility

RULE vs. RAA - Volatility Comparison

Adaptive Core ETF (RULE) has a higher volatility of 11.94% compared to SMI 3Fourteen REAL Asset Allocation ETF (RAA) at 3.90%. This indicates that RULE's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RAA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RULE	RAA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	11.94%	3.90%	+8.04%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	20.18%	8.18%	+12.00%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.87%	10.11%	+12.76%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.56%	12.86%	+2.70%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	15.56%	12.86%	+2.70%

RULE vs. RAA - Expense Ratio Comparison

RULE has a 1.10% expense ratio, which is higher than RAA's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

RULE vs. RAA - Dividend Comparison

RULE has not paid dividends to shareholders, while RAA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.11%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
RAA SMI 3Fourteen REAL Asset Allocation ETF	2.11%	2.14%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RULE Adaptive Core ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	2.01%	0.01%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RULE and RAA in my portfolio?

RULE and RAA 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, RULE or RAA?

RULE has higher volatility (11.94%) compared to RAA (3.90%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RULE dropped -30.48% vs RAA's -11.96%.

Which ETF is better, RULE or RAA?

On 1-year performance, RULE leads with 57.12% vs 21.28% for RAA. On fees, RAA is cheaper at 0.85% per year. On volatility, RAA has been the lower-risk option at 3.90%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RULE or RAA?

Over the 1-year period, RULE has performed better with a 57.12% return vs 21.28%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RULE or RAA?

RAA is cheaper with a 0.85% expense ratio, compared with 1.10% for RULE.

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

RAA has the higher dividend yield at 2.11%, compared with 0.00% for RULE.

What is the main difference between RULE and RAA?

They also come from different issuers: Mohr Funds and SMI Advisory Services. Their fees differ too: 1.10% for RULE and 0.85% for RAA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RULE currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.52 vs 2.12), 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.