AFSM vs SCDS
First Trust Active Factor Small Cap ETF vs JPMorgan Fundamental Data Science Small Core ETF
Which is better, AFSM or SCDS?
Each has led over a different period.
SCDS has a lower expense ratio. AFSM led over 1Y, SCDS over the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.93. AFSM is less concentrated, with 8.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 12.9%.
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 | SCDS |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.75% | 0.40%Best |
| AUM | $130M | $9M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.52% | 1.12% |
| Holdings | 657 | 279 |
| YTD Return | +19.57%Best | +17.38% |
| 1Y Return | +23.10%Best | +21.08% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +19.42% | - |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +9.06% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 16.7%Best | 17.7% |
| Max Drawdown | -25.1%Best | -26.7% |
| $10,000 over 2.2 years | $13,962 | $14,139Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 8.4%Best | 12.9% |
| Fund Family | First Trust Portfolios (US) | J.P. Morgan Asset Management |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Small Cap Blend | Small Cap Blend |
| Inception | Dec 4, 2019 | Aug 7, 2024 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 2.2 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Aug 8, 2024 to Oct 14, 2026 (2.2 years).
AFSM vs SCDS 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 2.2 years both funds cover.
AFSM vs SCDS Performance
First Trust Active Factor Small Cap ETF (AFSM) is an ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US) and JPMorgan Fundamental Data Science Small Core ETF (SCDS) is an ETF from J.P. Morgan Asset Management. Over the past year AFSM returned +23.10% while SCDS returned +21.08%. Year to date, AFSM is up 19.57% versus a gain of 17.38% for SCDS.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
SCDS has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 17.7% compared with 16.7% 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 -25.1% for AFSM and -26.7% for SCDS. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.93. 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 SCDS charges 0.40%. On a $10,000 position that is $75 vs $40 annually, a gap of $35 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, AFSM currently yields 0.52% against 1.12% for SCDS.
Holdings Overlap
21.5% of AFSM's money is in holdings SCDS also owns. 26.8% of SCDS's money is in holdings AFSM also owns.
SCDS and AFSM share little of their money.
66 positions in common, counted across the 321 positions we hold weights for in AFSM and 274 in SCDS, against full books of 657 and 279.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 198 positions for SCDS that do not appear in our book for AFSM (70.7% of the fund), and 240 for AFSM that do not appear in SCDS (73.2%).
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 SCDS | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| TWSTTwist Bioscience Corp. | 0.47% | 1.36% | 0.89% |
| PTGXProtagonist Therapeutics Inc | 0.71% | 0.69% | 0.02% |
| TNKTeekay Tankers Ltd Common Stock Temp Line | 0.84% | 0.44% | 0.40% |
| PENG:KYPenguin Solutions Inc | 0.83% | 0.45% | 0.38% |
| HALOHalozyme Therapeutics Inc | 0.68% | 0.58% | 0.10% |
| WSFSWsfs Financial Corp Common Stock | 0.30% | 0.91% | 0.61% |
| SCSCScansource Inc | 0.63% | 0.54% | 0.09% |
| ENSEnersys | 0.59% | 0.54% | 0.05% |
| ANFAbercrombie & Fitch Co. Class A | 0.78% | 0.31% | 0.47% |
| FFBCFirst Financial Bank. | 0.26% | 0.76% | 0.50% |
26.8% of SCDS is already inside AFSM.
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 SCDS?
AFSM has an expense ratio of 0.75% while SCDS charges 0.40%. SCDS is the cheaper option, by $35 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, AFSM or SCDS?
Over the past year AFSM returned +23.10% vs +21.08% for SCDS, so AFSM leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), AFSM annualized +16.38% vs +17.05% for SCDS. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, AFSM or SCDS?
SCDS has been the more volatile fund at 17.7% annualized versus 16.7% for AFSM. Worst drawdown: AFSM -25.1% vs SCDS -26.7%.
Should I hold both AFSM and SCDS?
AFSM and SCDS have a monthly-return correlation of 0.93, 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 SCDS?
26.8% of SCDS's money is in holdings AFSM also owns. 26.8% of SCDS's is in holdings AFSM also owns. They hold 66 positions in common, counted across the 321 positions we hold weights for in AFSM and 274 in SCDS.
Which pays a higher dividend, AFSM or SCDS?
AFSM yields 0.52% while SCDS yields 1.12%, so SCDS currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is SCDS better than AFSM?
SCDS has a lower expense ratio. AFSM led over 1Y, SCDS over the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.93. AFSM is less concentrated, with 8.4% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 12.9%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.