XRLX vs. TBFG

Last updated Aug 5, 2026

XRLX (FundX Conservative ETF) and TBFG (The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF) are both Tactical Allocation funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, XRLX returned 12.89% vs 20.30% for TBFG. Their correlation of 0.91 means they have usually moved in the same direction. XRLX charges 1.63%/yr vs 0.42%/yr for TBFG.

Performance

XRLX vs. TBFG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FundX Conservative ETF (XRLX) and The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF (TBFG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, XRLX achieves a 7.21% return, which is significantly lower than TBFG's 11.11% return.

XRLX

• 1D: 1.60%
• 1M: 1.40%
• 6M: 6.35%
• YTD: 7.21%
• 1Y: 12.89%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 14.28%

TBFG

• 1D: 1.47%
• 1M: 1.68%
• 6M: 7.49%
• YTD: 11.11%
• 1Y: 20.30%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 14.20%

*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)
TBFG The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF	$89.89K	$48.76K	$145.47K
XRLX FundX Conservative ETF	$64.82K	$36.37K	$85.34K

XRLX vs. TBFG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
XRLX FundX Conservative ETF	7.21%	7.85%	16.87%
TBFG The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF	11.11%	14.56%	10.20%

Correlation

The correlation between XRLX and TBFG is 0.94, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.94
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 16, 2024	0.91

The correlation between XRLX and TBFG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.91 to 0.94 - a consistent structural relationship.

XRLX vs. TBFG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	XRLX	TBFG
Technology	45.7%	31.4%
Communication Services	10.7%	7.4%
Industrials	9.9%	12.4%
Consumer Cyclical	9.0%	9.0%
Financial Services	8.0%	13.8%
Healthcare	6.4%	7.8%
Consumer Defensive	3.2%	4.2%
Energy	2.6%	4.8%
Basic Materials	1.8%	4.6%
Utilities	1.7%	2.2%
Real Estate	1.1%	2.5%

Return for Risk

XRLX vs. TBFG — Risk / Return Rank

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

XRLX

XRLX Risk / Return Rank: 49
XRLX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 47
XRLX Sortino Ratio Rank: 46
XRLX Omega Ratio Rank: 45
XRLX Calmar Ratio Rank: 50
XRLX Martin Ratio Rank: 56

TBFG

TBFG Risk / Return Rank: 72
TBFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 72
TBFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 72
TBFG Omega Ratio Rank: 73
TBFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
TBFG Martin Ratio Rank: 75

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.

XRLX vs. TBFG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FundX Conservative ETF (XRLX) and The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF (TBFG). 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.

	XRLX	TBFG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.33	1.87	-0.54
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.92	2.62	-0.70
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.34	-0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.06	2.67	-0.61
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.42	10.82	-3.41

XRLX vs. TBFG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current XRLX Sharpe Ratio is 1.33, which is comparable to the TBFG Sharpe Ratio of 1.87. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of XRLX and TBFG, 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

XRLX vs. TBFG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum XRLX drawdown since its inception was -15.33%, which is greater than TBFG's maximum drawdown of -13.43%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for XRLX and TBFG.

Drawdown Indicators

	XRLX	TBFG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.33%	-13.43%	-1.90%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.28%	-7.63%	+1.35%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.07%	0.00%	-1.07%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.74%	-1.62%	-0.12%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.74%	1.88%	-0.14%

Volatility

XRLX vs. TBFG - Volatility Comparison

FundX Conservative ETF (XRLX) has a higher volatility of 4.03% compared to The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF (TBFG) at 3.45%. This indicates that XRLX's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than TBFG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	XRLX	TBFG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.03%	3.45%	+0.58%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.47%	9.32%	-0.85%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.77%	10.94%	-1.17%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	11.26%	11.17%	+0.09%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	11.26%	11.17%	+0.09%

XRLX vs. TBFG - Expense Ratio Comparison

XRLX has a 1.63% expense ratio, which is higher than TBFG's 0.42% expense ratio.

Dividends

XRLX vs. TBFG - Dividend Comparison

XRLX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.59%, more than TBFG's 2.36% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023
TBFG The Brinsmere Fund - Growth ETF	2.36%	2.65%	2.43%	0.00%
XRLX FundX Conservative ETF	2.59%	2.77%	1.66%	1.68%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both XRLX and TBFG in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.94, XRLX and TBFG move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, XRLX or TBFG?

XRLX has higher volatility (4.03%) compared to TBFG (3.45%). In terms of maximum drawdown, XRLX dropped -15.33% vs TBFG's -13.43%.

Which ETF is better, XRLX or TBFG?

On 1-year performance, TBFG leads with 20.30% vs 12.89% for XRLX. On fees, TBFG is cheaper at 0.42% per year. On volatility, TBFG has been the lower-risk option at 3.45%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, XRLX or TBFG?

Over the 1-year period, TBFG has performed better with a 20.30% return vs 12.89%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, XRLX or TBFG?

TBFG is cheaper with a 0.42% expense ratio, compared with 1.63% for XRLX.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, XRLX or TBFG?

XRLX has the higher dividend yield at 2.59%, compared with 2.36% for TBFG.

What is the main difference between XRLX and TBFG?

They also come from different issuers: FundX and Brinsmere. Their fees differ too: 1.63% for XRLX and 0.42% for TBFG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TBFG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.87 vs 1.33), 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.