RVER vs. DMAY

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RVER (Trenchless Fund ETF) and DMAY (FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - May) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. RVER is actively managed, while DMAY is passively managed. Over the past year, RVER returned 24.60% vs 12.37% for DMAY. A 0.70 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RVER charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.85%/yr for DMAY.

Performance

RVER vs. DMAY - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Trenchless Fund ETF (RVER) and FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - May (DMAY). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RVER achieves a 18.77% return, which is significantly higher than DMAY's 4.42% return.

RVER

• 1D: -2.38%
• 1M: 22.28%
• YTD: 18.77%
• 6M: 15.82%
• 1Y: 24.60%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

DMAY

• 1D: -0.30%
• 1M: 1.30%
• YTD: 4.42%
• 6M: 5.19%
• 1Y: 12.37%
• 3Y*: 11.96%
• 5Y*: 7.16%
• 10Y*: —

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

RVER vs. DMAY - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
RVER Trenchless Fund ETF	18.77%	5.68%	17.75%
DMAY FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - May	4.42%	11.05%	9.19%

Correlation

The correlation between RVER and DMAY is 0.70, 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	0.70
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 4, 2024	0.70

The correlation between RVER and DMAY has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.70 to 0.70 - a consistent structural relationship.

RVER vs. DMAY - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RVER	DMAY
Technology	61.9%	36.2%
Energy	12.8%	3.5%
Communication Services	7.9%	10.9%
Industrials	7.3%	8.1%
Healthcare	5.6%	8.4%
Financial Services	5.2%	11.9%
Consumer Cyclical	4.4%	10.1%
Basic Materials	2.4%	1.8%
Consumer Defensive	-	4.9%
Real Estate	-	1.9%
Utilities	-	2.3%

Return for Risk

RVER vs. DMAY — Risk / Return Rank

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

RVER

RVER Risk / Return Rank: 28
RVER Sharpe Ratio Rank: 31
RVER Sortino Ratio Rank: 31
RVER Omega Ratio Rank: 29
RVER Calmar Ratio Rank: 25
RVER Martin Ratio Rank: 25

DMAY

DMAY Risk / Return Rank: 85
DMAY Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
DMAY Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
DMAY Omega Ratio Rank: 91
DMAY Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
DMAY Martin Ratio Rank: 92

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.

RVER vs. DMAY - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Trenchless Fund ETF (RVER) and FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - May (DMAY). 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.

	RVER	DMAY	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.09	2.65	-1.56
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	1.64	4.00	-2.36
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	1.60	-0.40
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.14	3.73	-2.58
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	3.13	22.76	-19.63
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RVER vs. DMAY - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RVER Sharpe Ratio is 1.09, which is lower than the DMAY Sharpe Ratio of 2.65. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RVER and DMAY, 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

	RVER	DMAY	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.09	2.65	-1.56
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.80	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.75	0.88	-0.12

Drawdowns

RVER vs. DMAY - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RVER drawdown since its inception was -26.21%, which is greater than DMAY's maximum drawdown of -13.90%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RVER and DMAY.

Drawdown Indicators

	RVER	DMAY	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-26.21%	-13.90%	-12.31%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-21.61%	-3.36%	-18.25%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-12.38%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-13.90%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.38%	-0.30%	-2.08%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.95%	-2.24%	-3.71%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.88%	0.55%	+7.33%

Volatility

RVER vs. DMAY - Volatility Comparison

Trenchless Fund ETF (RVER) has a higher volatility of 8.42% compared to FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - May (DMAY) at 0.84%. This indicates that RVER's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than DMAY based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RVER	DMAY	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.42%	0.84%	+7.58%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	18.39%	3.74%	+14.65%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.60%	4.73%	+17.87%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	26.40%	9.02%	+17.38%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	26.40%	8.43%	+17.97%

RVER vs. DMAY - Expense Ratio Comparison

RVER has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is lower than DMAY's 0.85% expense ratio.

Dividends

RVER vs. DMAY - Dividend Comparison

RVER's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.44%, while DMAY has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025
DMAY FT Cboe Vest U.S. Equity Deep Buffer ETF - May	0.00%	0.00%
RVER Trenchless Fund ETF	1.44%	1.71%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RVER and DMAY in my portfolio?

RVER and DMAY have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RVER or DMAY?

RVER has higher volatility (8.42%) compared to DMAY (0.84%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RVER dropped -26.21% vs DMAY's -13.90%.

Which ETF is better, RVER or DMAY?

On 1-year performance, RVER leads with 24.60% vs 12.37% for DMAY. On fees, RVER is cheaper at 0.65% per year. On volatility, DMAY has been the lower-risk option at 0.84%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RVER or DMAY?

Over the 1-year period, RVER has performed better with a 24.60% return vs 12.37%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RVER or DMAY?

RVER is cheaper with a 0.65% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for DMAY.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RVER or DMAY?

RVER has the higher dividend yield at 1.44%, compared with 0.00% for DMAY.

What is the main difference between RVER and DMAY?

They also come from different issuers: River1 and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for RVER and 0.85% for DMAY.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DMAY currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.65 vs 1.09), 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.