ABFL vs TILT
Abacus FCF Leaders ETF vs Northern Trust Morningstar US Market Factor Tilt ETF
Which is better, ABFL or TILT?
Nearly the same fund. TILT costs less.
TILT has a lower expense ratio. ABFL led over the full window, TILT over 1Y, 3Y and 5Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.95. TILT is less concentrated, with 27.1% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 35.0%.
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 | TILT |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.49% | 0.25%Best |
| AUM | $473M | $2.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.60% | 1.08% |
| Holdings | 58 | 1,929 |
| YTD Return | +11.62% | +11.74%Best |
| 1Y Return | +12.48% | +15.61%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +15.92% | +20.41%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +10.39% | +11.12%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.8%Best | 16.8% |
| Max Drawdown | -35.0%Best | -38.5% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $16,393 | $16,942Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 35.0% | 27.1%Best |
| Fund Family | FCF Advisors | Northern Trust Asset Management |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Sep 27, 2016 | Sep 16, 2011 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Sep 28, 2016 to Oct 14, 2026 (10 years).
ABFL vs TILT 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 10 years both funds cover.
ABFL vs TILT Performance
Abacus FCF Leaders ETF (ABFL) is an ETF from FCF Advisors and Northern Trust Morningstar US Market Factor Tilt ETF (TILT) is an ETF from Northern Trust Asset Management. Over the past year ABFL returned +12.48% while TILT returned +15.61%. Year to date, ABFL is up 11.62% versus a gain of 11.74% for TILT.
Over three years, ABFL compounded at +15.92% per year against +20.41% for TILT; over five years the annualized figures are +10.39% and +11.12% respectively. Across the full 10-year window we track, ABFL has the edge at +13.69% annualized vs +13.38%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
TILT has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 16.8% compared with 15.8% 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 -38.5% for TILT. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.95. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
ABFL charges 0.49% per year while TILT charges 0.25%. On a $10,000 position that is $49 vs $25 annually, a gap of $24 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ABFL currently yields 0.60% against 1.08% for TILT.
Holdings Overlap
94.7% of ABFL's money is in holdings TILT also owns. 18.9% of TILT's money is in holdings ABFL also owns.
Most of ABFL is already inside TILT. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
50 positions in common, counted across the 54 positions we hold weights for in ABFL and 1,904 in TILT, against full books of 58 and 1,929.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 1,484 positions for TILT that do not appear in our book for ABFL (79.7% of the fund), and 3 for ABFL that do not appear in TILT (3.8%).
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 TILT | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 5.30% | 5.56% | 0.26% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 5.55% | 4.98% | 0.57% |
| GEVGe Vernova, Inc. | 4.03% | 0.27% | 3.76% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 2.99% | 0.95% | 2.04% |
| ABBVAbbvie Inc. | 2.98% | 0.58% | 2.40% |
| LRCXLrcx Uw Equity | 3.00% | 0.44% | 2.56% |
| GILDGilead Sciences | 2.90% | 0.23% | 2.67% |
| PANWPalo Alto Networks, Inc | 2.70% | 0.33% | 2.37% |
| MAMastercard Inc | 2.57% | 0.46% | 2.11% |
| ANETArista Networks Inc. | 2.78% | 0.22% | 2.56% |
94.7% of ABFL is already inside TILT.
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 TILT?
ABFL has an expense ratio of 0.49% while TILT charges 0.25%. TILT is the cheaper option, by $24 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, ABFL or TILT?
Over the past year ABFL returned +12.48% vs +15.61% for TILT, so TILT leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (10 years), ABFL annualized +13.69% vs +13.38% for TILT. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, ABFL or TILT?
TILT has been the more volatile fund at 16.8% annualized versus 15.8% for ABFL. Worst drawdown: ABFL -35.0% vs TILT -38.5%.
Should I hold both ABFL and TILT?
ABFL and TILT have a monthly-return correlation of 0.95, so they move almost identically. What is left to separate them is the fee and the index each one tracks. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between ABFL and TILT?
94.7% of ABFL's money is in holdings TILT also owns. 18.9% of TILT's is in holdings ABFL also owns. They hold 50 positions in common, counted across the 54 positions we hold weights for in ABFL and 1,904 in TILT.
Which pays a higher dividend, ABFL or TILT?
ABFL yields 0.60% while TILT yields 1.08%, so TILT currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is TILT better than ABFL?
TILT has a lower expense ratio. ABFL led over the full window, TILT over 1Y, 3Y and 5Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.95. TILT is less concentrated, with 27.1% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 35.0%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.