TMFS vs. SLYG

Last updated Jul 15, 2026

TMFS (Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF) and SLYG (SPDR S&P 600 Small Cap Growth ETF) are both Small Cap Growth Equities funds. TMFS is actively managed, while SLYG is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, TMFS returned -1.01%/yr vs 7.45%/yr for SLYG. Their correlation of 0.85 suggests significant overlap in exposure. TMFS charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for SLYG.

Performance

TMFS vs. SLYG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF (TMFS) and SPDR S&P 600 Small Cap Growth ETF (SLYG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, TMFS achieves a 1.80% return, which is significantly lower than SLYG's 23.22% return.

TMFS

• 1D: -0.36%
• 1M: 2.07%
• 6M: -1.01%
• YTD: 1.80%
• 1Y: 0.13%
• 3Y*: 6.79%
• 5Y*: -1.01%
• 10Y*: —

SLYG

• 1D: 0.38%
• 1M: 2.65%
• 6M: 17.16%
• YTD: 23.22%
• 1Y: 27.83%
• 3Y*: 15.17%
• 5Y*: 7.45%
• 10Y*: 11.10%

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

TMFS vs. SLYG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018
TMFS Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF	1.80%	-1.59%	15.41%	25.40%	-33.15%	-2.38%	58.52%	40.19%	-6.14%
SLYG SPDR S&P 600 Small Cap Growth ETF	23.22%	5.20%	9.38%	17.27%	-21.26%	22.42%	19.48%	20.97%	-7.02%

Correlation

The correlation between TMFS and SLYG is 0.83, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.83
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.88
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.88
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 30, 2018	0.85

The correlation between TMFS and SLYG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.83 to 0.88 - a consistent structural relationship.

TMFS vs. SLYG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	TMFS	SLYG
Technology	24.4%	17.5%
Industrials	23.8%	18.8%
Healthcare	20.7%	17.0%
Financial Services	13.2%	14.2%
Consumer Cyclical	6.7%	10.9%
Real Estate	5.5%	6.5%
Energy	3.1%	4.5%
Basic Materials	2.5%	2.9%
Consumer Defensive	0.0%	3.0%
Communication Services	-	2.8%
Utilities	-	1.7%

Return for Risk

TMFS vs. SLYG — Risk / Return Rank

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

TMFS

TMFS Risk / Return Rank: 9
TMFS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 10
TMFS Sortino Ratio Rank: 9
TMFS Omega Ratio Rank: 9
TMFS Calmar Ratio Rank: 9
TMFS Martin Ratio Rank: 10

SLYG

SLYG Risk / Return Rank: 65
SLYG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 58
SLYG Sortino Ratio Rank: 63
SLYG Omega Ratio Rank: 54
SLYG Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
SLYG Martin Ratio Rank: 74

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.

TMFS vs. SLYG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF (TMFS) and SPDR S&P 600 Small Cap Growth ETF (SLYG). 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.

	TMFS	SLYG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.01	1.56	-1.55
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.16	2.34	-2.18
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.02	1.27	-0.25
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.01	3.07	-3.06
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	0.02	10.72	-10.70

TMFS vs. SLYG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current TMFS Sharpe Ratio is 0.01, which is lower than the SLYG Sharpe Ratio of 1.56. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of TMFS and SLYG, 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

TMFS vs. SLYG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum TMFS drawdown since its inception was -48.79%, smaller than the maximum SLYG drawdown of -62.92%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for TMFS and SLYG.

Drawdown Indicators

	TMFS	SLYG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-48.79%	-62.92%	+14.13%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-15.73%	-9.10%	-6.63%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-27.05%	-27.39%	+0.34%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-45.68%	-29.18%	-16.50%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-41.86%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-17.52%	-2.96%	-14.56%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-19.45%	-14.85%	-4.60%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.74%	2.61%	+3.13%

Volatility

TMFS vs. SLYG - Volatility Comparison

Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF (TMFS) has a higher volatility of 4.87% compared to SPDR S&P 600 Small Cap Growth ETF (SLYG) at 4.36%. This indicates that TMFS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than SLYG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	TMFS	SLYG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.87%	4.36%	+0.51%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.11%	13.02%	+1.09%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.86%	17.93%	+1.93%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	23.03%	21.55%	+1.48%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	25.44%	22.71%	+2.73%

TMFS vs. SLYG - Expense Ratio Comparison

TMFS has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than SLYG's 0.15% expense ratio.

Dividends

TMFS vs. SLYG - Dividend Comparison

TMFS has not paid dividends to shareholders, while SLYG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.66%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
SLYG SPDR S&P 600 Small Cap Growth ETF	0.66%	0.86%	1.22%	1.18%	1.18%	0.68%	0.71%	1.08%	1.06%	4.74%	1.13%	5.75%
TMFS Motley Fool Small-Cap Growth ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.34%	2.37%	5.57%	2.65%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both TMFS and SLYG in my portfolio?

TMFS and SLYG have a correlation of 0.83, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, TMFS or SLYG?

TMFS has higher volatility (4.87%) compared to SLYG (4.36%). In terms of maximum drawdown, TMFS dropped -48.79% vs SLYG's -62.92%.

Which ETF is better, TMFS or SLYG?

On 5-year performance, SLYG leads with 7.45% vs -1.01% for TMFS. On fees, SLYG is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, SLYG has been the lower-risk option at 4.36%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, TMFS or SLYG?

Over the 5-year period, SLYG has performed better with a 7.45% return vs -1.01%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, TMFS or SLYG?

SLYG is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for TMFS.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, TMFS or SLYG?

SLYG has the higher dividend yield at 0.66%, compared with 0.00% for TMFS.

What is the main difference between TMFS and SLYG?

They also come from different issuers: Motley Fool and State Street. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for TMFS and 0.15% for SLYG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

SLYG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.56 vs 0.01), 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.