ACVF vs USMC
American Conservative Values ETF vs Principal U.S. Mega-Cap ETF
Which is better, ACVF or USMC?
Nearly the same fund. USMC costs less.
USMC has a lower expense ratio. USMC led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.95. ACVF is less concentrated, with 28.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 55.3%.
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 | ACVF | USMC |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.75% | 0.12%Best |
| AUM | $155M | $5.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.49% | 0.74% |
| Holdings | 778 | 58 |
| YTD Return | +11.40% | +13.98%Best |
| 1Y Return | +12.34% | +14.91%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +18.66% | +22.22%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +11.53% | +14.81%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.7%Best | 14.8% |
| Max Drawdown | -24.4% | -24.1%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $17,257 | $19,948Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 28.8%Best | 55.3% |
| Fund Family | ACV ETFs | Principal Funds |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Oct 28, 2020 | Oct 11, 2017 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Oct 29, 2020 to Oct 14, 2026 (6 years).
ACVF vs USMC 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 6 years both funds cover.
ACVF vs USMC Performance
American Conservative Values ETF (ACVF) is an ETF from ACV ETFs and Principal U.S. Mega-Cap ETF (USMC) is an ETF from Principal Funds. Over the past year ACVF returned +12.34% while USMC returned +14.91%. Year to date, ACVF is up 11.40% versus a gain of 13.98% for USMC.
Over three years, ACVF compounded at +18.66% per year against +22.22% for USMC; over five years the annualized figures are +11.53% and +14.81% respectively. Across the full 6-year window we track, USMC has the edge at +17.45% annualized vs +15.29%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
USMC has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 14.8% compared with 14.7% for ACVF. 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 -24.4% for ACVF and -24.1% for USMC. 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
ACVF charges 0.75% per year while USMC charges 0.12%. On a $10,000 position that is $75 vs $12 annually, a gap of $63 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ACVF currently yields 0.49% against 0.74% for USMC.
Holdings Overlap
32.2% of ACVF's money is in holdings USMC also owns. 56.4% of USMC's money is in holdings ACVF also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
16 positions in common, counted across the 387 positions we hold weights for in ACVF and 27 in USMC, against full books of 778 and 58.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 11 positions for USMC that do not appear in our book for ACVF (43.6% of the fund), and 357 for ACVF that do not appear in USMC (67.1%).
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 ACVF | Weight in USMC | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp. | 8.46% | 7.99% | 0.47% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp 4.100 Feb 06 37 | 5.34% | 5.55% | 0.21% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.69% | 7.18% | 5.49% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 2.52% | 4.44% | 1.92% |
| MAMastercard Inc | 1.53% | 4.32% | 2.79% |
| BRK.BBrk/B | 1.66% | 3.07% | 1.41% |
| ABBVAbbvie Inc Accenture Plc, Class A | 0.98% | 3.37% | 2.39% |
| XOMExxon Mobil Corp. | 1.65% | 2.34% | 0.69% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 1.63% | 2.28% | 0.65% |
| GEGeneral Electric Co. | 0.68% | 2.87% | 2.19% |
56.4% of USMC is already inside ACVF.
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, ACVF or USMC?
ACVF has an expense ratio of 0.75% while USMC charges 0.12%. USMC is the cheaper option, by $63 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, ACVF or USMC?
Over the past year ACVF returned +12.34% vs +14.91% for USMC, so USMC leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (6 years), ACVF annualized +15.29% vs +17.45% for USMC. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, ACVF or USMC?
USMC has been the more volatile fund at 14.8% annualized versus 14.7% for ACVF. Worst drawdown: ACVF -24.4% vs USMC -24.1%.
Should I hold both ACVF and USMC?
ACVF and USMC 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 ACVF and USMC?
56.4% of USMC's money is in holdings ACVF also owns. 56.4% of USMC's is in holdings ACVF also owns. They hold 16 positions in common, counted across the 387 positions we hold weights for in ACVF and 27 in USMC.
Which pays a higher dividend, ACVF or USMC?
ACVF yields 0.49% while USMC yields 0.74%, so USMC currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is USMC better than ACVF?
USMC has a lower expense ratio. USMC led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.95. ACVF is less concentrated, with 28.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 55.3%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.