TDVG vs. RFDA

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

TDVG (T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF) and RFDA (RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 5 years, TDVG returned 10.19%/yr vs 12.89%/yr for RFDA. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. TDVG charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.52%/yr for RFDA.

Performance

TDVG vs. RFDA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF (TDVG) and RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF (RFDA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, TDVG achieves a 8.04% return, which is significantly lower than RFDA's 10.77% return.

TDVG

• 1D: -0.55%
• 1M: 1.22%
• YTD: 8.04%
• 6M: 7.41%
• 1Y: 17.57%
• 3Y*: 15.55%
• 5Y*: 10.19%
• 10Y*: —

RFDA

• 1D: 0.22%
• 1M: 0.36%
• YTD: 10.77%
• 6M: 9.90%
• 1Y: 26.59%
• 3Y*: 18.80%
• 5Y*: 12.89%
• 10Y*: 13.39%

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

TDVG vs. RFDA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
TDVG T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF	8.04%	14.80%	13.45%	13.95%	-10.15%	26.20%	12.97%
RFDA RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF	10.77%	16.42%	20.12%	16.98%	-8.58%	25.94%	11.80%

Correlation

The correlation between TDVG and RFDA 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	0.81
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.86
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 5, 2020	0.87

The correlation between TDVG and RFDA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.78 to 0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.

TDVG vs. RFDA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	TDVG	RFDA
Technology	26.2%	21.1%
Financial Services	19.3%	14.4%
Industrials	13.6%	8.6%
Healthcare	12.4%	9.7%
Consumer Cyclical	7.2%	7.4%
Consumer Defensive	6.9%	7.0%
Energy	5.3%	11.7%
Utilities	3.8%	4.8%
Basic Materials	2.8%	1.9%
Real Estate	1.6%	4.9%
Communication Services	1.0%	8.3%

Return for Risk

TDVG vs. RFDA — Risk / Return Rank

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

TDVG

TDVG Risk / Return Rank: 56
TDVG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 56
TDVG Sortino Ratio Rank: 58
TDVG Omega Ratio Rank: 54
TDVG Calmar Ratio Rank: 52
TDVG Martin Ratio Rank: 59

RFDA

RFDA Risk / Return Rank: 81
RFDA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 78
RFDA Sortino Ratio Rank: 76
RFDA Omega Ratio Rank: 78
RFDA Calmar Ratio Rank: 89
RFDA Martin Ratio Rank: 87

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.

TDVG vs. RFDA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF (TDVG) and RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF (RFDA). 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.

	TDVG	RFDA	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.81	2.28	-0.47
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.60	3.14	-0.54
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.42	-0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.44	4.90	-2.46
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	10.01	17.52	-7.51

TDVG vs. RFDA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TDVG Sharpe Ratio is 1.81, which is comparable to the RFDA Sharpe Ratio of 2.28. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TDVG and RFDA, 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

TDVG vs. RFDA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TDVG drawdown since its inception was -19.20%, smaller than the maximum RFDA drawdown of -34.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TDVG and RFDA.

Drawdown Indicators

	TDVG	RFDA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-19.20%	-34.60%	+15.40%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.24%	-5.45%	-1.79%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.02%	-19.35%	+5.33%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-19.20%	-19.35%	+0.15%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-34.60%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.82%	-1.67%	+0.85%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.73%	-3.73%	0.00%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.76%	1.52%	+0.24%

Volatility

TDVG vs. RFDA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF (TDVG) is 2.78%, while RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF (RFDA) has a volatility of 3.29%. This indicates that TDVG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RFDA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	TDVG	RFDA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.78%	3.29%	-0.51%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.61%	8.77%	-1.16%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.79%	11.72%	-1.93%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	13.92%	15.75%	-1.83%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	13.90%	16.87%	-2.97%

TDVG vs. RFDA - Expense Ratio Comparison

TDVG has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than RFDA's 0.52% expense ratio.

Dividends

TDVG vs. RFDA - Dividend Comparison

TDVG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.98%, less than RFDA's 1.80% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
RFDA RiverFront Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF	1.80%	1.89%	2.23%	2.68%	3.57%	1.44%	1.62%	1.87%	2.44%	1.90%	0.98%
TDVG T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF	0.98%	1.00%	1.06%	1.31%	1.15%	0.80%	0.40%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TDVG and RFDA in my portfolio?

TDVG and RFDA 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, TDVG or RFDA?

RFDA has higher volatility (3.29%) compared to TDVG (2.78%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TDVG dropped -19.20% vs RFDA's -34.60%.

Which ETF is better, TDVG or RFDA?

On 5-year performance, RFDA leads with 12.89% vs 10.19% for TDVG. On fees, TDVG is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, TDVG has been the lower-risk option at 2.78%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TDVG or RFDA?

Over the 5-year period, RFDA has performed better with a 12.89% return vs 10.19%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TDVG or RFDA?

TDVG is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.52% for RFDA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, TDVG or RFDA?

RFDA has the higher dividend yield at 1.80%, compared with 0.98% for TDVG.

What is the main difference between TDVG and RFDA?

They also come from different issuers: T. Rowe Price and SS&C. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for TDVG and 0.52% for RFDA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RFDA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.28 vs 1.81), 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.