ADME vs ATFV
Aptus Drawdown Managed Equity ETF vs Alger 35 ETF
Which is better, ADME or ATFV?
Each has led over a different period.
ATFV has a lower expense ratio. ADME led over 1Y, ATFV over 3Y, 5Y and the full window.
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 | ADME | ATFV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.79% | 0.55%Best |
| AUM | $313M | $629M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.36% | 0.17% |
| Holdings | 167 | 36 |
| YTD Return | +10.60%Best | +10.54% |
| 1Y Return | +11.38%Best | +10.71% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +17.03% | +37.71%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +7.35% | +12.08%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 12.6%Best | 23.9% |
| Max Drawdown | -23.4%Best | -45.3% |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $14,256 | $17,686Best |
| Fund Family | Aptus ETFs | Alger |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Jun 8, 2016 | May 4, 2021 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: May 4, 2021 to Oct 15, 2026 (5.4 years).
ADME vs ATFV 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 5.4 years both funds cover.
ADME vs ATFV Performance
Aptus Drawdown Managed Equity ETF (ADME) is an ETF from Aptus ETFs and Alger 35 ETF (ATFV) is an ETF from Alger. Over the past year ADME returned +11.38% while ATFV returned +10.71%. Year to date, ADME is up 10.60% versus a gain of 10.54% for ATFV.
Over three years, ADME compounded at +17.03% per year against +37.71% for ATFV; over five years the annualized figures are +7.35% and +12.08% respectively.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
ATFV has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 23.9% compared with 12.6% for ADME. 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 -23.4% for ADME and -45.3% for ATFV. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.84. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
ADME charges 0.79% per year while ATFV charges 0.55%. On a $10,000 position that is $79 vs $55 annually, a gap of $24 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ADME currently yields 0.36% against 0.17% for ATFV.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of ADME and ATFV you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, ADME or ATFV?
ADME has an expense ratio of 0.79% while ATFV charges 0.55%. ATFV is the cheaper option, by $24 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, ADME or ATFV?
Over the past year ADME returned +11.38% vs +10.71% for ATFV, so ADME leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, ADME or ATFV?
ATFV has been the more volatile fund at 23.9% annualized versus 12.6% for ADME. Worst drawdown: ADME -23.4% vs ATFV -45.3%.
Should I hold both ADME and ATFV?
ADME and ATFV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.84, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, ADME or ATFV?
ADME yields 0.36% while ATFV yields 0.17%, so ADME currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is ATFV better than ADME?
ATFV has a lower expense ratio. ADME led over 1Y, ATFV over 3Y, 5Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.