TMFC vs. TDVG

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

TMFC (Motley Fool 100 Index ETF) and TDVG (T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. TMFC is passively managed, while TDVG is actively managed. Over the past 5 years, TMFC returned 14.15%/yr vs 10.19%/yr for TDVG. A 0.76 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.50% expense ratio.

Performance

TMFC vs. TDVG - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, TMFC achieves a 4.32% return, which is significantly lower than TDVG's 8.04% return.

TMFC

• 1D: -1.24%
• 1M: -3.39%
• YTD: 4.32%
• 6M: 3.34%
• 1Y: 20.43%
• 3Y*: 23.57%
• 5Y*: 14.15%
• 10Y*: —

TDVG

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

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

TMFC vs. TDVG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
TMFC Motley Fool 100 Index ETF	4.32%	19.55%	35.17%	47.04%	-30.86%	25.30%	16.11%
TDVG T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF	8.04%	14.80%	13.45%	13.95%	-10.15%	26.20%	12.97%

Correlation

The correlation between TMFC and TDVG is 0.65, 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	0.65
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.69
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.76
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 5, 2020	0.76

The correlation between TMFC and TDVG shifts across timeframes, from 0.65 (1 year) to 0.76 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

TMFC vs. TDVG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	TMFC	TDVG
Technology	44.5%	26.2%
Communication Services	16.6%	1.0%
Financial Services	12.1%	19.3%
Consumer Cyclical	11.1%	7.2%
Healthcare	4.4%	12.4%
Industrials	4.0%	13.6%
Consumer Defensive	3.8%	6.9%
Energy	1.7%	5.3%
Real Estate	0.9%	1.6%
Basic Materials	0.6%	2.8%
Utilities	0.4%	3.8%

Return for Risk

TMFC vs. TDVG — Risk / Return Rank

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

TMFC

TMFC Risk / Return Rank: 39
TMFC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
TMFC Sortino Ratio Rank: 41
TMFC Omega Ratio Rank: 40
TMFC Calmar Ratio Rank: 34
TMFC Martin Ratio Rank: 39

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

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. TDVG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Motley Fool 100 Index ETF (TMFC) and T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF (TDVG). 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.

	TMFC	TDVG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.44	1.81	-0.37
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.00	2.60	-0.60
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.32	-0.07
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.62	2.44	-0.82
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.87	10.01	-4.15

TMFC vs. TDVG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TMFC Sharpe Ratio is 1.44, which is comparable to the TDVG Sharpe Ratio of 1.81. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TMFC and TDVG, 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

TMFC vs. TDVG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TMFC drawdown since its inception was -33.06%, which is greater than TDVG's maximum drawdown of -19.20%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TMFC and TDVG.

Drawdown Indicators

	TMFC	TDVG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-33.06%	-19.20%	-13.86%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.64%	-7.24%	-5.40%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-20.06%	-14.02%	-6.04%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-33.06%	-19.20%	-13.86%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.87%	-0.82%	-4.05%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.75%	-3.73%	-3.02%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.49%	1.76%	+1.73%

Volatility

TMFC vs. TDVG - Volatility Comparison

Motley Fool 100 Index ETF (TMFC) has a higher volatility of 5.44% compared to T. Rowe Price Dividend Growth ETF (TDVG) at 2.78%. This indicates that TMFC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than TDVG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	TMFC	TDVG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.44%	2.78%	+2.66%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.19%	7.61%	+3.58%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.27%	9.79%	+4.48%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.48%	13.92%	+6.56%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.00%	13.90%	+8.10%

TMFC vs. TDVG - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both TMFC and TDVG have an expense ratio of 0.50%.

Dividends

TMFC vs. TDVG - Dividend Comparison

TMFC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.14%, less than TDVG's 0.98% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
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%
TMFC Motley Fool 100 Index ETF	0.14%	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 TDVG in my portfolio?

TMFC and TDVG have a correlation of 0.65, 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 TDVG?

TMFC has higher volatility (5.44%) compared to TDVG (2.78%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TMFC dropped -33.06% vs TDVG's -19.20%.

Which ETF is better, TMFC or TDVG?

On 5-year performance, TMFC leads with 14.15% vs 10.19% for TDVG. Both ETFs have the same 0.50% expense ratio. 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, TMFC or TDVG?

Over the 5-year period, TMFC has performed better with a 14.15% return vs 10.19%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TMFC or TDVG?

TMFC and TDVG have the same expense ratio: 0.50% per year.

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

TDVG has the higher dividend yield at 0.98%, compared with 0.14% for TMFC.

What is the main difference between TMFC and TDVG?

They also come from different issuers: Motley Fool and T. Rowe Price.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TDVG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.81 vs 1.44), 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.