TFAFX vs. RMDFX

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

TFAFX (Tactical Growth Allocation Fund) and RMDFX (Aspiriant Defensive Allocation Fund) are both Multistrategy funds. Over the past 5 years, TFAFX returned 7.73%/yr vs 5.28%/yr for RMDFX. A 0.61 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. TFAFX charges 1.96%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for RMDFX.

Performance

TFAFX vs. RMDFX - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Tactical Growth Allocation Fund (TFAFX) and Aspiriant Defensive Allocation Fund (RMDFX). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, TFAFX achieves a 8.11% return, which is significantly higher than RMDFX's 7.32% return.

TFAFX

• 1D: 0.29%
• 1M: 4.95%
• YTD: 8.11%
• 6M: 7.44%
• 1Y: 22.38%
• 3Y*: 16.12%
• 5Y*: 7.73%
• 10Y*: —

RMDFX

• 1D: 0.24%
• 1M: 2.08%
• YTD: 7.32%
• 6M: 8.74%
• 1Y: 19.98%
• 3Y*: 11.18%
• 5Y*: 5.28%
• 10Y*: 5.40%

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

TFAFX vs. RMDFX - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019
TFAFX Tactical Growth Allocation Fund	8.11%	11.54%	20.19%	19.64%	-24.11%	16.14%	7.88%	3.73%
RMDFX Aspiriant Defensive Allocation Fund	7.32%	18.85%	1.45%	8.01%	-6.84%	4.20%	5.10%	5.48%

Correlation

The correlation between TFAFX and RMDFX is 0.51, 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	0.51
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.51
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.57
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 17, 2019	0.61

The correlation between TFAFX and RMDFX shifts across timeframes, from 0.51 (3 years) to 0.61 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

TFAFX vs. RMDFX — Risk / Return Rank

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

TFAFX

TFAFX Risk / Return Rank: 41
TFAFX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 41
TFAFX Sortino Ratio Rank: 35
TFAFX Omega Ratio Rank: 38
TFAFX Calmar Ratio Rank: 44
TFAFX Martin Ratio Rank: 44

RMDFX

RMDFX Risk / Return Rank: 95
RMDFX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 99
RMDFX Sortino Ratio Rank: 98
RMDFX Omega Ratio Rank: 97
RMDFX Calmar Ratio Rank: 91
RMDFX Martin Ratio Rank: 91

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.

TFAFX vs. RMDFX - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Tactical Growth Allocation Fund (TFAFX) and Aspiriant Defensive Allocation Fund (RMDFX). 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.

	TFAFX	RMDFX	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.87	4.33	-2.46
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.48	6.13	-3.64
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.97	-0.64
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.51	4.79	-2.29
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	9.38	18.77	-9.39
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

TFAFX vs. RMDFX - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TFAFX Sharpe Ratio is 1.87, which is lower than the RMDFX Sharpe Ratio of 4.33. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TFAFX and RMDFX, 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

	TFAFX	RMDFX	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.87	4.33	-2.46
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.53	0.84	-0.31
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.87	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.56	0.84	-0.28

Drawdowns

TFAFX vs. RMDFX - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TFAFX drawdown since its inception was -25.67%, which is greater than RMDFX's maximum drawdown of -15.96%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TFAFX and RMDFX.

Drawdown Indicators

	TFAFX	RMDFX	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-25.67%	-15.96%	-9.71%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.30%	-4.19%	-5.11%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-17.55%	-5.79%	-11.76%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.67%	-14.63%	-11.04%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-15.96%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-7.32%	-3.33%	-3.99%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.47%	1.07%	+1.40%

Volatility

TFAFX vs. RMDFX - Volatility Comparison

Tactical Growth Allocation Fund (TFAFX) has a higher volatility of 3.07% compared to Aspiriant Defensive Allocation Fund (RMDFX) at 1.47%. This indicates that TFAFX's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RMDFX based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	TFAFX	RMDFX	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.07%	1.47%	+1.60%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.04%	3.96%	+5.08%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.45%	4.64%	+7.81%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.79%	6.34%	+8.45%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.40%	6.23%	+8.17%

TFAFX vs. RMDFX - Expense Ratio Comparison

TFAFX has a 1.96% expense ratio, which is higher than RMDFX's 0.18% expense ratio.

Dividends

TFAFX vs. RMDFX - Dividend Comparison

TFAFX has not paid dividends to shareholders, while RMDFX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.32%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016
RMDFX Aspiriant Defensive Allocation Fund	4.32%	4.63%	0.00%	3.69%	0.78%	5.37%	2.28%	3.78%	4.11%	2.16%	1.16%
TFAFX Tactical Growth Allocation Fund	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.20%	3.71%	12.30%	4.64%	0.13%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TFAFX and RMDFX in my portfolio?

TFAFX and RMDFX have a correlation of 0.51, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, TFAFX or RMDFX?

TFAFX has higher volatility (3.07%) compared to RMDFX (1.47%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TFAFX dropped -25.67% vs RMDFX's -15.96%.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RMDFX currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (4.33 vs 1.87), 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.