XOVR vs. DARP

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

XOVR (ERShares Private-Public Crossover ETF) and DARP (Grizzle Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, XOVR returned -0.88% vs 53.03% for DARP. Their 0.77 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. Both charge a 0.75% expense ratio.

Performance

XOVR vs. DARP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in ERShares Private-Public Crossover ETF (XOVR) 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, XOVR achieves a -4.47% return, which is significantly lower than DARP's 24.09% return.

XOVR

• 1D: 3.44%
• 1M: -8.38%
• 6M: 4.57%
• YTD: -4.47%
• 1Y: -0.88%
• 3Y*: 16.81%
• 5Y*: 3.37%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 9.77%

DARP

• 1D: 2.48%
• 1M: -1.50%
• 6M: 11.54%
• YTD: 24.09%
• 1Y: 53.03%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 32.92%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
DARP Grizzle Growth ETF	$367.14K	$288.77K	$436.18K
XOVR ERShares Private-Public Crossover ETF	$32.19M	$37.02M	$109.67M

XOVR vs. DARP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
XOVR ERShares Private-Public Crossover ETF	-4.47%	11.83%	33.21%	15.97%
DARP Grizzle Growth ETF	24.09%	40.19%	24.63%	6.25%

Correlation

The correlation between XOVR and DARP is 0.63, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.63
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 28, 2023	0.77

The correlation between XOVR and DARP shifts across timeframes, from 0.63 (1 year) to 0.77 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

XOVR vs. DARP - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	XOVR	DARP
Technology	34.5%	48.3%
Communication Services	24.2%	13.5%
Healthcare	18.5%	1.4%
Financial Services	9.9%	-
Consumer Cyclical	6.7%	8.3%
Industrials	6.2%	8.2%
Energy	3.1%	9.2%
Basic Materials	-	4.2%
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	5.2%

Return for Risk

XOVR vs. DARP — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

XOVR

XOVR Risk / Return Rank: 11
XOVR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 11
XOVR Sortino Ratio Rank: 11
XOVR Omega Ratio Rank: 11
XOVR Calmar Ratio Rank: 11
XOVR Martin Ratio Rank: 11

DARP

DARP Risk / Return Rank: 80
DARP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
DARP Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
DARP Omega Ratio Rank: 72
DARP Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
DARP Martin Ratio Rank: 86

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

XOVR vs. DARP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for ERShares Private-Public Crossover ETF (XOVR) 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.

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.

	XOVR	DARP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.04	1.99	-2.02
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.11	2.47	-2.36
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.01	1.31	-0.30
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.04	3.38	-3.42
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.08	12.79	-12.87

XOVR vs. DARP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XOVR Sharpe Ratio is -0.04, which is lower than the DARP Sharpe Ratio of 1.99. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XOVR 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.

Drawdowns

XOVR vs. DARP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XOVR drawdown since its inception was -56.28%, which is greater than DARP's maximum drawdown of -30.27%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XOVR and DARP.

Drawdown Indicators

	XOVR	DARP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-56.28%	-30.27%	-26.01%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-24.32%	-15.76%	-8.56%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-25.23%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-49.35%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-11.38%	-7.17%	-4.21%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-18.21%	-4.72%	-13.49%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	11.53%	4.16%	+7.37%

Volatility

XOVR vs. DARP - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for ERShares Private-Public Crossover ETF (XOVR) is 7.84%, while Grizzle Growth ETF (DARP) has a volatility of 9.89%. This indicates that XOVR 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

	XOVR	DARP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.84%	9.89%	-2.05%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	19.11%	21.41%	-2.30%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	23.67%	26.90%	-3.23%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	26.68%	26.84%	-0.16%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	27.03%	26.84%	+0.19%

XOVR vs. DARP - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both XOVR and DARP have an expense ratio of 0.75%.

Dividends

XOVR vs. DARP - Dividend Comparison

XOVR has not paid dividends to shareholders, while DARP's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.35%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
DARP Grizzle Growth ETF	0.35%	0.43%	1.93%	0.32%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
XOVR ERShares Private-Public Crossover ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	57.75%	6.31%	0.08%	3.71%	0.08%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both XOVR and DARP in my portfolio?

XOVR and DARP have a correlation of 0.63, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, XOVR or DARP?

DARP has higher volatility (9.89%) compared to XOVR (7.84%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XOVR dropped -56.28% vs DARP's -30.27%.

Which ETF is better, XOVR or DARP?

On 1-year performance, DARP leads with 53.03% vs -0.88% for XOVR. Both ETFs have the same 0.75% expense ratio. On volatility, XOVR has been the lower-risk option at 7.84%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, XOVR or DARP?

Over the 1-year period, DARP has performed better with a 53.03% return vs -0.88%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, XOVR or DARP?

XOVR and DARP have the same expense ratio: 0.75% per year.

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

DARP has the higher dividend yield at 0.35%, compared with 0.00% for XOVR.

What is the main difference between XOVR and DARP?

They also come from different issuers: ERShares and Grizzle.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DARP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.99 vs -0.04), 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.