AFSM vs RESM
First Trust Active Factor Small Cap ETF vs Columbia Research Enhanced Small Cap ETF
Which is better, AFSM or RESM?
RESM costs less.
RESM has a lower expense ratio. AFSM is less concentrated, with 8.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 76.5%.
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 | RESM |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.75% | 0.32%Best |
| AUM | $130M | $6M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.52% | 0.08% |
| Holdings | 657 | 2,051 |
| YTD Return | +19.57%Best | +13.69% |
| 1Y Return | +23.10% | - |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +19.42% | - |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +9.06% | - |
| Top 10 Weight | 8.4%Best | 76.5% |
| Fund Family | First Trust Portfolios (US) | Columbia Threadneedle Investments |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Small Cap Blend | Small Cap Blend |
| Inception | Dec 4, 2019 | Dec 11, 2025 |
Not shown on this pair: Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window.
AFSM vs RESM 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 is available from the range buttons; it is not the opening view here because over the whole period one of these two funds moves so much further than the other that its line would sit flat on the axis.
AFSM vs RESM Performance
First Trust Active Factor Small Cap ETF (AFSM) is an ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US) and Columbia Research Enhanced Small Cap ETF (RESM) is an ETF from Columbia Threadneedle Investments. Year to date, AFSM is up 19.57% versus a gain of 13.69% for RESM.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Fees and Cost Over Time
AFSM charges 0.75% per year while RESM charges 0.32%. On a $10,000 position that is $75 vs $32 annually, a gap of $43 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, AFSM currently yields 0.52% against 0.08% for RESM.
Holdings Overlap
We hold position weights for 321 holdings in AFSM and 25 in RESM, totalling 99.8% and 100.0% of the two funds. The two books name no position in common, so there is no overlap percentage to show.
0 positions in common, counted across the 321 positions we hold weights for in AFSM and 25 in RESM, against full books of 657 and 2,051.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 7 positions for RESM that do not appear in our book for AFSM (27.7% of the fund), and 301 for AFSM that do not appear in RESM (92.8%).
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.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of AFSM and RESM 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, AFSM or RESM?
AFSM has an expense ratio of 0.75% while RESM charges 0.32%. RESM is the cheaper option, by $43 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which pays a higher dividend, AFSM or RESM?
AFSM yields 0.52% while RESM yields 0.08%, so AFSM currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is RESM better than AFSM?
RESM has a lower expense ratio. AFSM is less concentrated, with 8.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 76.5%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.