RVER vs. SPTM

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

RVER (Trenchless Fund ETF) and SPTM (SPDR Portfolio S&P 1500 Composite Stock Market ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. RVER is actively managed, while SPTM is passively managed. Over the past year, RVER returned 17.51% vs 23.97% for SPTM. A 0.77 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RVER charges 0.65%/yr vs 0.03%/yr for SPTM.

Performance

RVER vs. SPTM - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Trenchless Fund ETF (RVER) and SPDR Portfolio S&P 1500 Composite Stock Market ETF (SPTM). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RVER achieves a 11.38% return, which is significantly higher than SPTM's 8.72% return.

RVER

• 1D: -1.77%
• 1M: 5.71%
• YTD: 11.38%
• 6M: 10.20%
• 1Y: 17.51%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

SPTM

• 1D: -1.32%
• 1M: -1.02%
• YTD: 8.72%
• 6M: 7.68%
• 1Y: 23.97%
• 3Y*: 20.38%
• 5Y*: 12.72%
• 10Y*: 15.36%

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

RVER vs. SPTM - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
RVER Trenchless Fund ETF	11.38%	5.68%	18.88%
SPTM SPDR Portfolio S&P 1500 Composite Stock Market ETF	8.72%	16.93%	13.54%

Correlation

The correlation between RVER and SPTM 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 3, 2024	0.77

The correlation between RVER and SPTM has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.77 to 0.77 - a consistent structural relationship.

RVER vs. SPTM - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RVER	SPTM
Technology	60.8%	37.4%
Basic Materials	9.9%	1.9%
Energy	9.3%	3.3%
Industrials	7.3%	8.9%
Communication Services	6.7%	10.0%
Healthcare	6.1%	8.4%
Financial Services	4.5%	11.4%
Consumer Cyclical	4.4%	10.1%
Utilities	2.8%	2.1%
Consumer Defensive	-	4.4%
Real Estate	-	2.2%

Return for Risk

RVER vs. SPTM — Risk / Return Rank

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

RVER

RVER Risk / Return Rank: 21
RVER Sharpe Ratio Rank: 23
RVER Sortino Ratio Rank: 23
RVER Omega Ratio Rank: 22
RVER Calmar Ratio Rank: 20
RVER Martin Ratio Rank: 20

SPTM

SPTM Risk / Return Rank: 61
SPTM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 60
SPTM Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
SPTM Omega Ratio Rank: 59
SPTM Calmar Ratio Rank: 58
SPTM Martin Ratio Rank: 70

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. SPTM - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Trenchless Fund ETF (RVER) and SPDR Portfolio S&P 1500 Composite Stock Market ETF (SPTM). 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.

	RVER	SPTM	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.76	1.93	-1.17
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.20	2.63	-1.44
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.14	1.35	-0.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.81	2.77	-1.96
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.19	12.49	-10.30

RVER vs. SPTM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RVER Sharpe Ratio is 0.76, which is lower than the SPTM Sharpe Ratio of 1.93. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RVER and SPTM, 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

RVER vs. SPTM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RVER drawdown since its inception was -26.21%, smaller than the maximum SPTM drawdown of -54.80%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RVER and SPTM.

Drawdown Indicators

	RVER	SPTM	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-26.21%	-54.80%	+28.59%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-21.61%	-8.68%	-12.93%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-18.87%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-24.14%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-34.66%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-8.46%	-2.80%	-5.66%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.96%	-9.03%	+3.07%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	8.03%	1.92%	+6.11%

Volatility

RVER vs. SPTM - Volatility Comparison

Trenchless Fund ETF (RVER) has a higher volatility of 10.33% compared to SPDR Portfolio S&P 1500 Composite Stock Market ETF (SPTM) at 4.79%. This indicates that RVER's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than SPTM based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RVER	SPTM	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.33%	4.79%	+5.54%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.23%	9.82%	+9.41%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	23.21%	12.51%	+10.70%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	26.42%	16.96%	+9.46%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	26.42%	18.04%	+8.38%

RVER vs. SPTM - Expense Ratio Comparison

RVER has a 0.65% expense ratio, which is higher than SPTM's 0.03% expense ratio.

Dividends

RVER vs. SPTM - Dividend Comparison

RVER's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.53%, more than SPTM's 1.08% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
RVER Trenchless Fund ETF	1.53%	1.71%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
SPTM SPDR Portfolio S&P 1500 Composite Stock Market ETF	1.08%	1.13%	1.28%	1.44%	1.69%	1.25%	1.56%	1.72%	1.90%	1.66%	1.91%	1.92%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RVER and SPTM in my portfolio?

RVER and SPTM 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, RVER or SPTM?

RVER has higher volatility (10.33%) compared to SPTM (4.79%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RVER dropped -26.21% vs SPTM's -54.80%.

Which ETF is better, RVER or SPTM?

On 1-year performance, SPTM leads with 23.97% vs 17.51% for RVER. On fees, SPTM is cheaper at 0.03% per year. On volatility, SPTM has been the lower-risk option at 4.79%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RVER or SPTM?

Over the 1-year period, SPTM has performed better with a 23.97% return vs 17.51%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RVER or SPTM?

SPTM is cheaper with a 0.03% expense ratio, compared with 0.65% for RVER.

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

RVER has the higher dividend yield at 1.53%, compared with 1.08% for SPTM.

What is the main difference between RVER and SPTM?

They also come from different issuers: River1 and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.65% for RVER and 0.03% for SPTM.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

SPTM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.93 vs 0.76), 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.