TBFG vs. CEFZ

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

TBFG (The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF) and CEFZ (RiverNorth Active Income ETF) are both Tactical Allocation funds. Both are actively managed. A 0.72 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. TBFG charges 0.42%/yr vs 3.36%/yr for CEFZ.

Performance

TBFG vs. CEFZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF (TBFG) and RiverNorth Active Income ETF (CEFZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, TBFG achieves a 8.68% return, which is significantly higher than CEFZ's 3.57% return.

TBFG

• 1D: -1.55%
• 1M: 0.04%
• YTD: 8.68%
• 6M: 8.23%
• 1Y: 21.35%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

CEFZ

• 1D: -0.97%
• 1M: -1.00%
• YTD: 3.57%
• 6M: 3.99%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

TBFG vs. CEFZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
TBFG The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF	8.68%	9.34%
CEFZ RiverNorth Active Income ETF	3.57%	7.41%

Correlation

The correlation between TBFG and CEFZ is 0.72, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 4, 2025	0.72

Return for Risk

TBFG vs. CEFZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

TBFG

TBFG Risk / Return Rank: 67
TBFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
TBFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
TBFG Omega Ratio Rank: 70
TBFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
TBFG Martin Ratio Rank: 69

CEFZ

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

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.

TBFG vs. CEFZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF (TBFG) and RiverNorth Active Income ETF (CEFZ). 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.

	TBFG	CEFZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.03	—	—
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.81	—	—
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	—	—
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.81	—	—
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.85	—	—

Drawdowns

TBFG vs. CEFZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TBFG drawdown since its inception was -13.43%, which is greater than CEFZ's maximum drawdown of -6.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TBFG and CEFZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	TBFG	CEFZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.43%	-6.66%	-6.77%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.63%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.87%	-2.23%	+0.36%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.62%	-1.21%	-0.41%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.81%	—	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	TBFG	CEFZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.66%	—	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.00%	—	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.55%	10.46%	+0.09%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.18%	10.46%	+0.72%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.18%	10.46%	+0.72%

TBFG vs. CEFZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

TBFG has a 0.42% expense ratio, which is lower than CEFZ's 3.36% expense ratio.

Dividends

TBFG vs. CEFZ - Dividend Comparison

TBFG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.39%, less than CEFZ's 8.40% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024
CEFZ RiverNorth Active Income ETF	8.40%	4.17%	0.00%
TBFG The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF	2.39%	2.65%	2.43%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TBFG and CEFZ in my portfolio?

TBFG and CEFZ have a correlation of 0.72, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, TBFG or CEFZ?

On fees, TBFG is cheaper at 0.42% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, TBFG or CEFZ?

TBFG is cheaper with a 0.42% expense ratio, compared with 3.36% for CEFZ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, TBFG or CEFZ?

CEFZ has the higher dividend yield at 8.40%, compared with 2.39% for TBFG.

What is the main difference between TBFG and CEFZ?

They also come from different issuers: The Brinsmere Funds and RiverNorth. Their fees differ too: 0.42% for TBFG and 3.36% for CEFZ.