ARKQ vs ATFV
ARK Autonomous Technology & Robotics ETF vs Alger 35 ETF
Which is better, ARKQ or ATFV?
ATFV has been ahead.
ATFV has a lower expense ratio. ATFV led over 1Y, 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 | ARKQ | ATFV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.75% | 0.55%Best |
| AUM | $1.9B | $629M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.25% | 0.17% |
| Holdings | 39 | 36 |
| YTD Return | -2.20% | +10.86%Best |
| 1Y Return | -3.80% | +11.47%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +30.76% | +37.88%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +7.81% | +12.24%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 30.9% | 23.9%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -55.7% | -45.3%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $14,564 | $17,813Best |
| Fund Family | Ark Invest | Alger |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Sep 30, 2014 | 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 14, 2026 (5.4 years).
ARKQ 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.
ARKQ vs ATFV Performance
ARK Autonomous Technology & Robotics ETF (ARKQ) is an ETF from Ark Invest and Alger 35 ETF (ATFV) is an ETF from Alger. Over the past year ARKQ returned -3.80% while ATFV returned +11.47%. Year to date, ARKQ is down 2.20% versus a gain of 10.86% for ATFV.
Over three years, ARKQ compounded at +30.76% per year against +37.88% for ATFV; over five years the annualized figures are +7.81% and +12.24% respectively.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
ARKQ has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 30.9% compared with 23.9% for ATFV. 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 -55.7% for ARKQ 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
ARKQ charges 0.75% per year while ATFV charges 0.55%. On a $10,000 position that is $75 vs $55 annually, a gap of $20 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ARKQ currently yields 0.25% against 0.17% for ATFV.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of ARKQ 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, ARKQ or ATFV?
ARKQ has an expense ratio of 0.75% while ATFV charges 0.55%. ATFV is the cheaper option, by $20 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, ARKQ or ATFV?
Over the past year ARKQ returned -3.80% vs +11.47% for ATFV, so ATFV leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, ARKQ or ATFV?
ARKQ has been the more volatile fund at 30.9% annualized versus 23.9% for ATFV. Worst drawdown: ARKQ -55.7% vs ATFV -45.3%.
Should I hold both ARKQ and ATFV?
ARKQ 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, ARKQ or ATFV?
ARKQ yields 0.25% while ATFV yields 0.17%, so ARKQ currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is ATFV better than ARKQ?
ATFV has a lower expense ratio. ATFV led over 1Y, 3Y, 5Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.