TACK vs. RHRX

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

TACK (Fairlead Tactical Sector Fund) and RHRX (RH Tactical Rotation ETF) are both Tactical Allocation funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, TACK returned 11.07%/yr vs 22.87%/yr for RHRX. A 0.64 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. TACK charges 0.76%/yr vs 1.36%/yr for RHRX.

Performance

TACK vs. RHRX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fairlead Tactical Sector Fund (TACK) and RH Tactical Rotation ETF (RHRX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, TACK achieves a 4.86% return, which is significantly lower than RHRX's 21.30% return.

TACK

• 1D: 0.13%
• 1M: 1.95%
• YTD: 4.86%
• 6M: 5.12%
• 1Y: 13.26%
• 3Y*: 11.07%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RHRX

• 1D: -0.34%
• 1M: 6.95%
• YTD: 21.30%
• 6M: 21.26%
• 1Y: 40.94%
• 3Y*: 22.87%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

TACK vs. RHRX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
TACK Fairlead Tactical Sector Fund	4.86%	10.93%	11.76%	7.43%	-5.41%
RHRX RH Tactical Rotation ETF	21.30%	16.70%	22.21%	10.28%	-12.02%

Correlation

The correlation between TACK and RHRX 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 (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.75
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 24, 2022	0.64

The correlation between TACK and RHRX shifts across timeframes, from 0.64 (all time) to 0.78 (1 year), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

TACK vs. RHRX - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	TACK	RHRX
Utilities	16.8%	3.3%
Consumer Defensive	16.7%	1.5%
Energy	16.4%	0.9%
Industrials	16.1%	17.4%
Healthcare	16.1%	3.3%
Basic Materials	14.5%	15.8%
Communication Services	12.2%	6.3%
Consumer Cyclical	2.3%	6.7%
Technology	1.1%	39.3%
Financial Services	-	4.9%
Real Estate	-	0.6%

Return for Risk

TACK vs. RHRX — Risk / Return Rank

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

TACK

TACK Risk / Return Rank: 41
TACK Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
TACK Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
TACK Omega Ratio Rank: 36
TACK Calmar Ratio Rank: 46
TACK Martin Ratio Rank: 44

RHRX

RHRX Risk / Return Rank: 90
RHRX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 90
RHRX Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
RHRX Omega Ratio Rank: 87
RHRX Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
RHRX 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.

TACK vs. RHRX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fairlead Tactical Sector Fund (TACK) and RH Tactical Rotation ETF (RHRX). 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.

	TACK	RHRX	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.41	3.12	-1.71
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.02	4.21	-2.19
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.54	-0.30
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.28	6.02	-3.75
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.16	23.61	-16.45
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

TACK vs. RHRX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TACK Sharpe Ratio is 1.41, which is lower than the RHRX Sharpe Ratio of 3.12. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TACK and RHRX, 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

	TACK	RHRX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.41	3.12	-1.71
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.61	0.53	+0.09

Drawdowns

TACK vs. RHRX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TACK drawdown since its inception was -14.49%, smaller than the maximum RHRX drawdown of -25.33%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TACK and RHRX.

Drawdown Indicators

	TACK	RHRX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.49%	-25.33%	+10.84%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-5.85%	-6.83%	+0.98%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.49%	-21.90%	+7.41%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.21%	-0.34%	-0.87%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.23%	-8.95%	+4.72%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.86%	1.74%	+0.12%

Volatility

TACK vs. RHRX - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Fairlead Tactical Sector Fund (TACK) is 2.43%, while RH Tactical Rotation ETF (RHRX) has a volatility of 4.35%. This indicates that TACK experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RHRX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	TACK	RHRX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.43%	4.35%	-1.92%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.06%	9.73%	-2.67%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.46%	13.19%	-3.73%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.23%	19.03%	-7.80%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.23%	19.03%	-7.80%

TACK vs. RHRX - Expense Ratio Comparison

TACK has a 0.76% expense ratio, which is lower than RHRX's 1.36% expense ratio.

Dividends

TACK vs. RHRX - Dividend Comparison

TACK's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.21%, while RHRX has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
RHRX RH Tactical Rotation ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
TACK Fairlead Tactical Sector Fund	1.21%	1.18%	1.26%	1.29%	0.89%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TACK and RHRX in my portfolio?

TACK and RHRX 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, TACK or RHRX?

RHRX has higher volatility (4.35%) compared to TACK (2.43%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TACK dropped -14.49% vs RHRX's -25.33%.

Which ETF is better, TACK or RHRX?

On 3-year performance, RHRX leads with 22.87% vs 11.07% for TACK. On fees, TACK is cheaper at 0.76% per year. On volatility, TACK has been the lower-risk option at 2.43%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TACK or RHRX?

Over the 3-year period, RHRX has performed better with a 22.87% return vs 11.07%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TACK or RHRX?

TACK is cheaper with a 0.76% expense ratio, compared with 1.36% for RHRX.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, TACK or RHRX?

TACK has the higher dividend yield at 1.21%, compared with 0.00% for RHRX.

What is the main difference between TACK and RHRX?

They also come from different issuers: Fairlead and Adaptive. Their fees differ too: 0.76% for TACK and 1.36% for RHRX.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RHRX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.12 vs 1.41), 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.