TMFC vs. DARP

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

TMFC (Motley Fool 100 Index ETF) and DARP (Grizzle Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. TMFC is passively managed, while DARP is actively managed. Over the past year, TMFC returned 25.76% vs 82.62% for DARP. Their correlation of 0.81 suggests significant overlap in exposure. TMFC charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for DARP.

Performance

TMFC vs. DARP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Motley Fool 100 Index ETF (TMFC) and Grizzle Growth ETF (DARP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, TMFC achieves a 8.44% return, which is significantly lower than DARP's 32.67% return.

TMFC

• 1D: -0.85%
• 1M: 4.54%
• YTD: 8.44%
• 6M: 8.14%
• 1Y: 25.76%
• 3Y*: 26.20%
• 5Y*: 15.96%
• 10Y*: —

DARP

• 1D: -0.76%
• 1M: 8.18%
• YTD: 32.67%
• 6M: 34.22%
• 1Y: 82.62%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

TMFC vs. DARP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
TMFC Motley Fool 100 Index ETF	8.44%	19.55%	35.17%	10.40%
DARP Grizzle Growth ETF	32.67%	40.19%	24.63%	6.25%

Correlation

The correlation between TMFC and DARP is 0.74, 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	0.74
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 29, 2023	0.81

The correlation between TMFC and DARP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.74 to 0.81 - a consistent structural relationship.

TMFC vs. DARP - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	TMFC	DARP
Technology	41.4%	45.8%
Communication Services	17.4%	19.4%
Financial Services	12.9%	-
Consumer Cyclical	11.4%	6.6%
Healthcare	4.8%	1.4%
Consumer Defensive	4.3%	-
Industrials	4.0%	12.0%
Energy	1.9%	9.9%
Real Estate	0.9%	-
Basic Materials	0.6%	4.7%
Utilities	0.5%	5.4%

Return for Risk

TMFC vs. DARP — Risk / Return Rank

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

TMFC

TMFC Risk / Return Rank: 49
TMFC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
TMFC Sortino Ratio Rank: 53
TMFC Omega Ratio Rank: 53
TMFC Calmar Ratio Rank: 40
TMFC Martin Ratio Rank: 46

DARP

DARP Risk / Return Rank: 91
DARP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
DARP Sortino Ratio Rank: 88
DARP Omega Ratio Rank: 87
DARP Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
DARP Martin Ratio Rank: 94

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.

TMFC vs. DARP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Motley Fool 100 Index ETF (TMFC) and Grizzle Growth ETF (DARP). 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.

	TMFC	DARP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.91	3.59	-1.68
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.63	4.03	-1.41
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.54	-0.21
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.05	7.03	-4.98
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.63	26.75	-19.13
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

TMFC vs. DARP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TMFC Sharpe Ratio is 1.91, which is lower than the DARP Sharpe Ratio of 3.59. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TMFC and DARP, 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

	TMFC	DARP	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.91	3.59	-1.68
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.79	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.83	1.49	-0.66

Drawdowns

TMFC vs. DARP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TMFC drawdown since its inception was -33.06%, which is greater than DARP's maximum drawdown of -30.27%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TMFC and DARP.

Drawdown Indicators

	TMFC	DARP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.06%	-30.27%	-2.79%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.64%	-11.82%	-0.82%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.06%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-33.06%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.11%	-0.76%	-0.35%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.77%	-4.64%	-2.13%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.39%	3.10%	+0.29%

Volatility

TMFC vs. DARP - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Motley Fool 100 Index ETF (TMFC) is 3.21%, while Grizzle Growth ETF (DARP) has a volatility of 7.07%. This indicates that TMFC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than DARP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	TMFC	DARP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.21%	7.07%	-3.86%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.11%	17.49%	-7.38%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.52%	23.16%	-9.64%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.37%	26.11%	-5.74%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.99%	26.11%	-4.12%

TMFC vs. DARP - Expense Ratio Comparison

TMFC has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than DARP's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

TMFC vs. DARP - Dividend Comparison

TMFC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.13%, less than DARP's 0.33% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
DARP Grizzle Growth ETF	0.33%	0.43%	1.93%	0.32%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
TMFC Motley Fool 100 Index ETF	0.13%	0.14%	0.40%	0.26%	0.27%	0.23%	0.42%	0.50%	0.61%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TMFC and DARP in my portfolio?

TMFC and DARP have a correlation of 0.74, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, TMFC or DARP?

DARP has higher volatility (7.07%) compared to TMFC (3.21%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TMFC dropped -33.06% vs DARP's -30.27%.

Which ETF is better, TMFC or DARP?

On 1-year performance, DARP leads with 82.62% vs 25.76% for TMFC. On fees, TMFC is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, TMFC has been the lower-risk option at 3.21%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TMFC or DARP?

Over the 1-year period, DARP has performed better with a 82.62% return vs 25.76%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TMFC or DARP?

TMFC is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for DARP.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, TMFC or DARP?

DARP has the higher dividend yield at 0.33%, compared with 0.13% for TMFC.

What is the main difference between TMFC and DARP?

They also come from different issuers: Motley Fool and Grizzle. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for TMFC and 0.75% for DARP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DARP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.59 vs 1.91), 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.