TMFS vs. MFVL
TMFS (Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF) and MFVL (Motley Fool Value Factor ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - TMFS is a Small Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by Motley Fool, while MFVL is a Large Cap Value Equities fund actively managed by Motley Fool. Both are actively managed. A 0.68 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. TMFS charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.50%/yr for MFVL.
Performance
TMFS vs. MFVL - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, TMFS achieves a -4.69% return, which is significantly lower than MFVL's 0.39% return.
TMFS
- 1D
- -1.11%
- 1M
- -3.92%
- YTD
- -4.69%
- 6M
- -6.04%
- 1Y
- -3.97%
- 3Y*
- 6.32%
- 5Y*
- -1.68%
- 10Y*
- —
MFVL
- 1D
- -1.06%
- 1M
- 0.90%
- YTD
- 0.39%
- 6M
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
TMFS vs. MFVL - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
TMFS Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF | -4.69% | -1.11% |
MFVL Motley Fool Value Factor ETF | 0.39% | 1.39% |
Correlation
The correlation between TMFS and MFVL is 0.68, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 10, 2025 | 0.68 |
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
TMFS vs. MFVL — Risk / Return Rank
TMFS
MFVL
TMFS vs. MFVL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF (TMFS) and Motley Fool Value Factor ETF (MFVL). 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.
| TMFS | MFVL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.98 | — | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.25 | — | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.70 | — | — |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading charts...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| TMFS | MFVL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | -0.20 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | -0.07 | — | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.32 | 0.31 | +0.01 |
Drawdowns
TMFS vs. MFVL - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum TMFS drawdown since its inception was -48.79%, which is greater than MFVL's maximum drawdown of -7.03%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TMFS and MFVL.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| TMFS | MFVL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -48.79% | -7.03% | -41.76% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -15.73% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -27.05% | — | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -45.68% | — | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -22.78% | -3.29% | -19.49% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -19.47% | -2.42% | -17.05% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 5.68% | — | — |
Volatility
TMFS vs. MFVL - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| TMFS | MFVL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.23% | — | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 13.98% | — | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 19.62% | 12.15% | +7.47% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 22.93% | 12.15% | +10.78% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 25.52% | 12.15% | +13.37% |
TMFS vs. MFVL - Expense Ratio Comparison
TMFS has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than MFVL's 0.50% expense ratio.
Dividends
TMFS vs. MFVL - Dividend Comparison
Neither TMFS nor MFVL has paid dividends to shareholders.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
MFVL Motley Fool Value Factor ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
TMFS Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.34% | 2.37% | 5.57% | 2.65% |
Frequently Asked Questions
TMFS and MFVL have a correlation of 0.68, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, MFVL is cheaper at 0.50% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
MFVL is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for TMFS.
TMFS and MFVL have nearly identical dividend yields, around 0.00%.
TMFS is categorized as Small Cap Growth Equities, while MFVL is Large Cap Value Equities. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for TMFS and 0.50% for MFVL.
Find the right allocation for TMFS and MFVL
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