PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
SIZE vs. FTDS
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

SIZE vs. FTDS

Last updated Aug 2, 2026
Documentation

SIZE (iShares MSCI USA Size Factor ETF) and FTDS (First Trust Dividend Strength ETF) are both Mid Cap Blend Equities funds - SIZE tracks the MSCI USA Low Size Index while FTDS tracks the Dividend Strength Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, SIZE returned 11.70%/yr vs 11.18%/yr for FTDS. Their 0.69 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. SIZE charges 0.15%/yr vs 0.70%/yr for FTDS.

Performance

SIZE vs. FTDS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares MSCI USA Size Factor ETF (SIZE) and First Trust Dividend Strength ETF (FTDS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, SIZE achieves a 11.20% return, which is significantly lower than FTDS's 15.08% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with SIZE having a 11.70% annualized return and FTDS not far behind at 11.18%.

SIZE

1D
-0.35%
1M
0.26%
6M
8.60%
YTD
11.20%
1Y
17.37%
3Y*
13.59%
5Y*
7.99%
10Y*
11.70%
ALL TIME*
11.92%

FTDS

1D
0.31%
1M
4.00%
6M
8.67%
YTD
15.08%
1Y
24.87%
3Y*
15.10%
5Y*
8.13%
10Y*
11.18%
ALL TIME*
6.70%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)

FTDS

First Trust Dividend Strength ETF
$146.70K$150.71K$191.32K

SIZE

iShares MSCI USA Size Factor ETF
$662.14K$788.99K$1.01M

SIZE vs. FTDS - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
SIZE
iShares MSCI USA Size Factor ETF		11.20%10.51%14.37%17.78%-15.86%25.05%16.26%28.97%-6.59%18.76%
FTDS
First Trust Dividend Strength ETF		15.08%13.64%11.12%11.75%-13.54%24.79%14.16%24.29%-10.35%20.07%

Correlation

The correlation between SIZE and FTDS is 0.66, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.66

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.80

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.83

Correlation (10Y)
Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.

0.75

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 18, 2013

0.69

The correlation between SIZE and FTDS shifts across timeframes, from 0.66 (1 year) to 0.83 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

SIZE vs. FTDS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
SIZE
FTDS

Technology

18.6%
8.6%

Financial Services

15.7%
30.2%

Industrials

14.8%
20.6%

Healthcare

11.4%
9.6%

Consumer Cyclical

10.9%
3.3%

Utilities

5.6%

-

Consumer Defensive

5.5%
1.9%

Real Estate

5.3%

-

Basic Materials

4.9%
8.3%

Energy

3.8%
17.6%

Communication Services

3.3%

-

Technology

SIZE
18.6%
FTDS
8.6%

Financial Services

SIZE
15.7%
FTDS
30.2%

Industrials

SIZE
14.8%
FTDS
20.6%

Healthcare

SIZE
11.4%
FTDS
9.6%

Consumer Cyclical

SIZE
10.9%
FTDS
3.3%

Utilities

SIZE
5.6%
FTDS

-

Consumer Defensive

SIZE
5.5%
FTDS
1.9%

Real Estate

SIZE
5.3%
FTDS

-

Basic Materials

SIZE
4.9%
FTDS
8.3%

Energy

SIZE
3.8%
FTDS
17.6%

Communication Services

SIZE
3.3%
FTDS

-

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

iShares MSCI USA Size Factor ETF

First Trust Dividend Strength ETF

Often compared with SIZE:
SIZE vs. XLGSIZE vs. SPYSIZE vs. QUALSIZE vs. QDVA.DESIZE vs. VIGSIZE vs. VOOSIZE vs. QGRO
Often compared with FTDS:
FTDS vs. QGRWFTDS vs. TUSAFTDS vs. OPTZFTDS vs. MOOFTDS vs. DGROFTDS vs. IWSFTDS vs. LST

Return for Risk

SIZE vs. FTDS — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.
SIZE
SIZE Risk / Return Rank: 5555
Overall Rank
SIZE Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5151
Sharpe Ratio Rank
SIZE Sortino Ratio Rank: 5353
Sortino Ratio Rank
SIZE Omega Ratio Rank: 4848
Omega Ratio Rank
SIZE Calmar Ratio Rank: 5757
Calmar Ratio Rank
SIZE Martin Ratio Rank: 6565
Martin Ratio Rank
FTDS
FTDS Risk / Return Rank: 8181
Overall Rank
FTDS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8181
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FTDS Sortino Ratio Rank: 8484
Sortino Ratio Rank
FTDS Omega Ratio Rank: 7878
Omega Ratio Rank
FTDS Calmar Ratio Rank: 8888
Calmar Ratio Rank
FTDS Martin Ratio Rank: 7575
Martin Ratio Rank
The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

SIZE vs. FTDS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI USA Size Factor ETF (SIZE) and First Trust Dividend Strength ETF (FTDS). 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.

SIZEFTDSDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility
1.25
1.86

-0.61

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk
1.87
2.76

-0.89

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.22

1.33

-0.11

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.02

3.61

-1.59

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

7.91

9.38

-1.47

SIZE vs. FTDS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current SIZE Sharpe Ratio is 1.25, which is lower than the FTDS Sharpe Ratio of 1.86. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of SIZE and FTDS, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Loading charts...

Drawdowns

SIZE vs. FTDS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum SIZE drawdown since its inception was -39.15%, smaller than the maximum FTDS drawdown of -56.53%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for SIZE and FTDS.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

SIZEFTDSDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-39.15%

-56.53%

+17.38%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-7.97%

-6.57%

-1.40%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-18.71%

-18.04%

-0.67%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-24.03%

-23.35%

-0.68%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-39.15%

-42.47%

+3.32%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.39%

-0.74%

-0.65%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-4.14%

-9.81%

+5.67%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.03%

2.53%

-0.50%

Volatility

SIZE vs. FTDS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares MSCI USA Size Factor ETF (SIZE) is 3.12%, while First Trust Dividend Strength ETF (FTDS) has a volatility of 3.55%. This indicates that SIZE experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FTDS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

SIZEFTDSDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.12%

3.55%

-0.43%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.56%

8.28%

+1.28%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

12.93%

12.81%

+0.12%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

17.40%

17.52%

-0.12%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

18.67%

20.05%

-1.38%

SIZE vs. FTDS - Expense Ratio Comparison

SIZE has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than FTDS's 0.70% expense ratio.

Dividends

SIZE vs. FTDS - Dividend Comparison

SIZE's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.37%, less than FTDS's 1.53% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
FTDS
First Trust Dividend Strength ETF		1.53%1.59%2.05%2.15%2.31%0.72%0.99%1.13%1.14%0.79%1.24%0.95%
SIZE
iShares MSCI USA Size Factor ETF		1.37%1.50%1.53%1.42%1.59%1.19%1.43%1.35%2.43%1.58%1.88%1.95%

Frequently Asked Questions

SIZE and FTDS have a correlation of 0.66, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

FTDS has higher volatility (3.55%) compared to SIZE (3.12%). In terms of maximum drawdown, SIZE dropped -39.15% vs FTDS's -56.53%.

On 10-year performance, SIZE leads with 11.70% vs 11.18% for FTDS. On fees, SIZE is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, SIZE has been the lower-risk option at 3.12%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, SIZE has performed better with a 11.70% return vs 11.18%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

SIZE is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.70% for FTDS.

FTDS has the higher dividend yield at 1.53%, compared with 1.37% for SIZE.

SIZE tracks MSCI USA Low Size Index, while FTDS tracks Dividend Strength Index. They also come from different issuers: iShares and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for SIZE and 0.70% for FTDS.

FTDS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.86 vs 1.25), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for SIZE and FTDS

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer