AFSM vs OMFS
First Trust Active Factor Small Cap ETF vs Invesco Russell 2000 Dynamic Multifactor ETF
Which is better, AFSM or OMFS?
AFSM has been ahead.
OMFS has a lower expense ratio. AFSM led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.94. AFSM is less concentrated, with 8.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 12.0%.
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 | AFSM | OMFS |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.75% | 0.39%Best |
| AUM | $130M | $264M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.52% | 1.30% |
| Holdings | 657 | 2,228 |
| YTD Return | +19.57%Best | +8.89% |
| 1Y Return | +23.10%Best | +10.32% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +19.42%Best | +14.55% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +9.06%Best | +4.67% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 21.8%Best | 22.6% |
| Max Drawdown | -43.5% | -42.5%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $15,429Best | $12,564 |
| Top 10 Weight | 8.4%Best | 12.0% |
| Fund Family | First Trust Portfolios (US) | Invesco (US) |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Small Cap Blend | Small Cap Blend |
| Inception | Dec 4, 2019 | Nov 8, 2017 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Dec 4, 2019 to Oct 14, 2026 (6.9 years).
AFSM vs OMFS 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 6.9 years both funds cover.
AFSM vs OMFS Performance
First Trust Active Factor Small Cap ETF (AFSM) is an ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US) and Invesco Russell 2000 Dynamic Multifactor ETF (OMFS) is an ETF from Invesco (US). Over the past year AFSM returned +23.10% while OMFS returned +10.32%. Year to date, AFSM is up 19.57% versus a gain of 8.89% for OMFS.
Over three years, AFSM compounded at +19.42% per year against +14.55% for OMFS; over five years the annualized figures are +9.06% and +4.67% respectively. Across the full 7-year window we track, AFSM has the edge at +11.04% annualized vs +9.85%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
OMFS has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 22.6% compared with 21.8% for AFSM. 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 -43.5% for AFSM and -42.5% for OMFS. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.94. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
AFSM charges 0.75% per year while OMFS charges 0.39%. On a $10,000 position that is $75 vs $39 annually, a gap of $36 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, AFSM currently yields 0.52% against 1.30% for OMFS.
Holdings Overlap
60.1% of AFSM's money is in holdings OMFS also owns. 28.4% of OMFS's money is in holdings AFSM also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
186 positions in common, counted across the 321 positions we hold weights for in AFSM and 933 in OMFS, against full books of 657 and 2,228.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 706 positions for OMFS that do not appear in our book for AFSM (66.7% of the fund), and 124 for AFSM that do not appear in OMFS (36.6%).
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 AFSM | Weight in OMFS | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| SSRMSsr Mining Inc | 0.21% | 1.42% | 1.21% |
| AAMIAcadian Asset Management Inc | 0.68% | 0.91% | 0.23% |
| KRYSKrystal Biotech Inc | 0.58% | 0.98% | 0.40% |
| EATBrinker Intl Inc | 0.39% | 1.15% | 0.76% |
| NHCNational Healthcare Corporation | 0.96% | 0.46% | 0.50% |
| MATXMatson Inc | 0.90% | 0.46% | 0.44% |
| MYRGMyr Group Inc | 0.15% | 1.20% | 1.05% |
| TVTXTravere Therapeutics Inc | 0.32% | 0.81% | 0.49% |
| ETONEton Pharmaceuticals Inc. | 0.75% | 0.36% | 0.39% |
| VCTRVictory Receivables Corp | 0.18% | 0.92% | 0.74% |
60.1% of AFSM is already inside OMFS.
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, AFSM or OMFS?
AFSM has an expense ratio of 0.75% while OMFS charges 0.39%. OMFS is the cheaper option, by $36 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, AFSM or OMFS?
Over the past year AFSM returned +23.10% vs +10.32% for OMFS, so AFSM leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (7 years), AFSM annualized +11.04% vs +9.85% for OMFS. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, AFSM or OMFS?
OMFS has been the more volatile fund at 22.6% annualized versus 21.8% for AFSM. Worst drawdown: AFSM -43.5% vs OMFS -42.5%.
Should I hold both AFSM and OMFS?
AFSM and OMFS have a monthly-return correlation of 0.94, 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 AFSM and OMFS?
60.1% of AFSM's money is in holdings OMFS also owns. 28.4% of OMFS's is in holdings AFSM also owns. They hold 186 positions in common, counted across the 321 positions we hold weights for in AFSM and 933 in OMFS.
Which pays a higher dividend, AFSM or OMFS?
AFSM yields 0.52% while OMFS yields 1.30%, so OMFS currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is OMFS better than AFSM?
OMFS has a lower expense ratio. AFSM led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.94. AFSM is less concentrated, with 8.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 12.0%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.