ABFL vs OMFL
Abacus FCF Leaders ETF vs Invesco Russell 1000 Dynamic Multifactor ETF
Which is better, ABFL or OMFL?
Each has led over a different period.
OMFL has a lower expense ratio. ABFL led over 5Y, OMFL over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. ABFL is less concentrated, with 35.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.0%.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | ABFL | OMFL |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.49% | 0.29%Best |
| AUM | $473M | $4.8B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.60% | 0.84% |
| Holdings | 58 | 1,272 |
| YTD Return | +11.62% | +15.31%Best |
| 1Y Return | +12.48% | +18.97%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +15.92% | +16.52%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +10.39%Best | +9.22% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.5%Best | 17.2% |
| Max Drawdown | -35.0% | -33.2%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $16,393Best | $15,542 |
| Top 10 Weight | 35.0%Best | 37.0% |
| Fund Family | FCF Advisors | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Sep 27, 2016 | Nov 8, 2017 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Nov 10, 2017 to Oct 14, 2026 (8.9 years).
ABFL vs OMFL growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 8.9 years both funds cover.
ABFL vs OMFL Performance
Abacus FCF Leaders ETF (ABFL) is an ETF from FCF Advisors and Invesco Russell 1000 Dynamic Multifactor ETF (OMFL) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year ABFL returned +12.48% while OMFL returned +18.97%. Year to date, ABFL is up 11.62% versus a gain of 15.31% for OMFL.
Over three years, ABFL compounded at +15.92% per year against +16.52% for OMFL; over five years the annualized figures are +10.39% and +9.22% respectively. Across the full 9-year window we track, OMFL has the edge at +13.86% annualized vs +12.41%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
OMFL has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.2% compared with 16.5% for ABFL. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -35.0% for ABFL and -33.2% for OMFL. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.87. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
ABFL charges 0.49% per year while OMFL charges 0.29%. On a $10,000 position that is $49 vs $29 annually, a gap of $20 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ABFL currently yields 0.60% against 0.84% for OMFL.
Holdings Overlap
84.6% of ABFL's money is in holdings OMFL also owns. 33.3% of OMFL's money is in holdings ABFL also owns.
Most of ABFL is already inside OMFL. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
42 positions in common, counted across the 54 positions we hold weights for in ABFL and 577 in OMFL, against full books of 58 and 1,272.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 509 positions for OMFL that do not appear in our book for ABFL (65.7% of the fund), and 11 for ABFL that do not appear in OMFL (13.8%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in ABFL | Weight in OMFL | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAPLApple, Inc | 5.55% | 9.03% | 3.48% |
| NVDANvidia Corp | 5.30% | 5.56% | 0.26% |
| VVisa Inc Class A | 2.32% | 2.86% | 0.54% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 2.99% | 1.90% | 1.09% |
| GEVGe Vernova, Inc. | 4.03% | 0.77% | 3.26% |
| MAMastercard Inc | 2.57% | 2.17% | 0.40% |
| LRCXLrcx Uw Equity | 3.00% | 1.57% | 1.43% |
| ABBVAbbvie Inc. | 2.98% | 0.75% | 2.23% |
| KLACKla-tencor | 2.70% | 1.00% | 1.70% |
| ANETArista Networks Inc. | 2.78% | 0.68% | 2.10% |
84.6% of ABFL is already inside OMFL.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, ABFL or OMFL?
ABFL has an expense ratio of 0.49% while OMFL charges 0.29%. OMFL is the cheaper option, by $20 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, ABFL or OMFL?
Over the past year ABFL returned +12.48% vs +18.97% for OMFL, so OMFL leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (9 years), ABFL annualized +12.41% vs +13.86% for OMFL. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, ABFL or OMFL?
OMFL has been the more volatile fund at 17.2% annualized versus 16.5% for ABFL. Worst drawdown: ABFL -35.0% vs OMFL -33.2%.
Should I hold both ABFL and OMFL?
ABFL and OMFL have a monthly-return correlation of 0.87, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between ABFL and OMFL?
84.6% of ABFL's money is in holdings OMFL also owns. 33.3% of OMFL's is in holdings ABFL also owns. They hold 42 positions in common, counted across the 54 positions we hold weights for in ABFL and 577 in OMFL.
Which pays a higher dividend, ABFL or OMFL?
ABFL yields 0.60% while OMFL yields 0.84%, so OMFL currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is OMFL better than ABFL?
OMFL has a lower expense ratio. ABFL led over 5Y, OMFL over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. ABFL is less concentrated, with 35.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.0%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.