TMFM vs. FCUS
TMFM (Motley Fool Mid-Cap Growth ETF) and FCUS (Pinnacle Focused Opportunities ETF) are both Mid Cap Growth Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past 3 years, TMFM returned 2.90%/yr vs 33.88%/yr for FCUS. A 0.52 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. TMFM charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.79%/yr for FCUS.
Performance
TMFM vs. FCUS - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, TMFM achieves a -10.13% return, which is significantly lower than FCUS's 40.06% return.
TMFM
- 1D
- 1.47%
- 1M
- 0.99%
- YTD
- -10.13%
- 6M
- -12.40%
- 1Y
- -20.98%
- 3Y*
- 2.90%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
FCUS
- 1D
- -2.18%
- 1M
- -0.44%
- YTD
- 40.06%
- 6M
- 36.58%
- 1Y
- 80.88%
- 3Y*
- 33.88%
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
TMFM vs. FCUS - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TMFM Motley Fool Mid-Cap Growth ETF | -10.13% | -8.98% | 17.54% | 21.81% | -0.90% |
FCUS Pinnacle Focused Opportunities ETF | 40.06% | 13.69% | 30.59% | 21.13% | 0.87% |
Correlation
The correlation between TMFM and FCUS is 0.22, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.22 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.49 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 30, 2022 | 0.52 |
Over the past year, the correlation between TMFM and FCUS has dropped to 0.22 - well below their long-term average of 0.52, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.
TMFM vs. FCUS - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
TMFM
FCUS
Technology
Healthcare
Industrials
Financial Services
-
Real Estate
-
Consumer Cyclical
Consumer Defensive
Basic Materials
-
Communication Services
-
Energy
-
Utilities
-
-
Technology
TMFM
FCUS
Healthcare
TMFM
FCUS
Industrials
TMFM
FCUS
Financial Services
TMFM
FCUS
-
Real Estate
TMFM
FCUS
-
Consumer Cyclical
TMFM
FCUS
Consumer Defensive
TMFM
FCUS
Basic Materials
TMFM
-
FCUS
Communication Services
TMFM
-
FCUS
Energy
TMFM
-
FCUS
Utilities
TMFM
-
FCUS
-
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
TMFM vs. FCUS — Risk / Return Rank
TMFM
FCUS
TMFM vs. FCUS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Motley Fool Mid-Cap Growth ETF (TMFM) and Pinnacle Focused Opportunities ETF (FCUS). 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.
| TMFM | FCUS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -3.39 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -4.23 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.83 | 1.36 | -0.53 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.77 | 4.59 | -5.36 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -1.35 | 15.81 | -17.17 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
TMFM vs. FCUS - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum TMFM drawdown since its inception was -31.75%, smaller than the maximum FCUS drawdown of -39.89%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TMFM and FCUS.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| TMFM | FCUS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -31.75% | -39.89% | +8.14% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -27.34% | -17.70% | -9.64% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -31.75% | -39.89% | +8.14% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -26.87% | -6.67% | -20.20% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -15.97% | -7.51% | -8.46% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 15.53% | 5.13% | +10.40% |
Volatility
TMFM vs. FCUS - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Motley Fool Mid-Cap Growth ETF (TMFM) is 6.99%, while Pinnacle Focused Opportunities ETF (FCUS) has a volatility of 12.56%. This indicates that TMFM experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than FCUS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| TMFM | FCUS | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.99% | 12.56% | -5.57% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 15.72% | 26.90% | -11.18% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 18.94% | 35.71% | -16.77% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 20.58% | 30.34% | -9.76% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 20.58% | 30.34% | -9.76% |
TMFM vs. FCUS - Expense Ratio Comparison
TMFM has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than FCUS's 0.79% expense ratio.
Dividends
TMFM vs. FCUS - Dividend Comparison
TMFM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.07%, less than FCUS's 3.09% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
FCUS Pinnacle Focused Opportunities ETF | 3.09% | 4.33% | 11.19% | 0.00% |
TMFM Motley Fool Mid-Cap Growth ETF | 0.07% | 0.06% | 16.27% | 2.55% |
Frequently Asked Questions
TMFM and FCUS have a correlation of 0.22, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
FCUS has higher volatility (12.56%) compared to TMFM (6.99%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TMFM dropped -31.75% vs FCUS's -39.89%.
On 3-year performance, FCUS leads with 33.88% vs 2.90% for TMFM. On fees, FCUS is cheaper at 0.79% per year. On volatility, TMFM has been the lower-risk option at 6.99%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 3-year period, FCUS has performed better with a 33.88% return vs 2.90%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
FCUS is cheaper with a 0.79% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for TMFM.
FCUS has the higher dividend yield at 3.09%, compared with 0.07% for TMFM.
They also come from different issuers: Motley Fool and Pinnacle. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for TMFM and 0.79% for FCUS.
FCUS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.28 vs -1.11), 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.
Find the right allocation for TMFM and FCUS
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer