RUNN vs. FNX

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RUNN (Running Oak Efficient Growth ETF) and FNX (First Trust Mid Cap Core AlphaDEX Fund) are both Mid Cap Blend Equities funds. RUNN is actively managed, while FNX is passively managed. Over the past year, RUNN returned -1.91% vs 26.57% for FNX. Their correlation of 0.82 suggests significant overlap in exposure. RUNN charges 0.58%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for FNX.

Performance

RUNN vs. FNX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Running Oak Efficient Growth ETF (RUNN) and First Trust Mid Cap Core AlphaDEX Fund (FNX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RUNN achieves a -3.00% return, which is significantly lower than FNX's 11.81% return.

RUNN

• 1D: -0.89%
• 1M: -1.22%
• YTD: -3.00%
• 6M: -3.15%
• 1Y: -1.91%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

FNX

• 1D: -0.18%
• 1M: 2.71%
• YTD: 11.81%
• 6M: 11.61%
• 1Y: 26.57%
• 3Y*: 16.99%
• 5Y*: 8.31%
• 10Y*: 11.90%

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

RUNN vs. FNX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
RUNN Running Oak Efficient Growth ETF	-3.00%	2.30%	17.16%	12.05%
FNX First Trust Mid Cap Core AlphaDEX Fund	11.81%	9.87%	12.21%	12.79%

Correlation

The correlation between RUNN and FNX is 0.78, 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	0.78
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 9, 2023	0.82

The correlation between RUNN and FNX has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.78 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.

RUNN vs. FNX - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RUNN	FNX
Industrials	39.4%	19.3%
Technology	17.8%	9.5%
Healthcare	13.3%	10.4%
Financial Services	12.8%	18.6%
Consumer Cyclical	8.3%	14.4%
Communication Services	2.1%	2.2%
Basic Materials	2.0%	3.1%
Consumer Defensive	-	4.0%
Energy	-	6.2%
Real Estate	-	8.6%
Utilities	-	2.7%

Return for Risk

RUNN vs. FNX — Risk / Return Rank

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

RUNN

RUNN Risk / Return Rank: 7
RUNN Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7
RUNN Sortino Ratio Rank: 6
RUNN Omega Ratio Rank: 7
RUNN Calmar Ratio Rank: 7
RUNN Martin Ratio Rank: 7

FNX

FNX Risk / Return Rank: 52
FNX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 47
FNX Sortino Ratio Rank: 50
FNX Omega Ratio Rank: 46
FNX Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
FNX Martin Ratio Rank: 56

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.

RUNN vs. FNX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Running Oak Efficient Growth ETF (RUNN) and First Trust Mid Cap Core AlphaDEX Fund (FNX). 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.

	RUNN	FNX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.15	1.66	-1.81
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.13	2.44	-2.57
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.99	1.29	-0.30
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.19	2.89	-3.07
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.44	9.95	-10.39
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RUNN vs. FNX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RUNN Sharpe Ratio is -0.15, which is lower than the FNX Sharpe Ratio of 1.66. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RUNN and FNX, 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

	RUNN	FNX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.15	1.66	-1.81
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.41	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.54	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.68	0.42	+0.26

Drawdowns

RUNN vs. FNX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RUNN drawdown since its inception was -16.83%, smaller than the maximum FNX drawdown of -57.11%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RUNN and FNX.

Drawdown Indicators

	RUNN	FNX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.83%	-57.11%	+40.28%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.34%	-9.24%	-1.10%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-24.97%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-24.97%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-43.95%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.89%	-0.77%	-7.12%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.54%	-8.41%	+4.87%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.34%	2.68%	+1.66%

Volatility

RUNN vs. FNX - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Running Oak Efficient Growth ETF (RUNN) is 3.57%, while First Trust Mid Cap Core AlphaDEX Fund (FNX) has a volatility of 4.63%. This indicates that RUNN experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FNX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RUNN	FNX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.57%	4.63%	-1.06%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.70%	11.43%	-1.73%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.85%	16.11%	-3.26%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.81%	20.49%	-6.68%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.81%	21.97%	-8.16%

RUNN vs. FNX - Expense Ratio Comparison

RUNN has a 0.58% expense ratio, which is lower than FNX's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

RUNN vs. FNX - Dividend Comparison

RUNN's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.57%, less than FNX's 0.83% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FNX First Trust Mid Cap Core AlphaDEX Fund	0.83%	0.88%	1.26%	1.11%	1.19%	0.94%	1.04%	1.21%	1.01%	0.90%	1.07%	1.07%
RUNN Running Oak Efficient Growth ETF	0.57%	0.55%	0.39%	0.33%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RUNN and FNX in my portfolio?

RUNN and FNX have a correlation of 0.78, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RUNN or FNX?

FNX has higher volatility (4.63%) compared to RUNN (3.57%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RUNN dropped -16.83% vs FNX's -57.11%.

Which ETF is better, RUNN or FNX?

On 1-year performance, FNX leads with 26.57% vs -1.91% for RUNN. On fees, RUNN is cheaper at 0.58% per year. On volatility, RUNN has been the lower-risk option at 3.57%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RUNN or FNX?

Over the 1-year period, FNX has performed better with a 26.57% return vs -1.91%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RUNN or FNX?

RUNN is cheaper with a 0.58% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for FNX.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RUNN or FNX?

FNX has the higher dividend yield at 0.83%, compared with 0.57% for RUNN.

What is the main difference between RUNN and FNX?

They also come from different issuers: Running Oak Capital and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.58% for RUNN and 0.60% for FNX.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FNX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.66 vs -0.15), 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.