ARKW vs ATFV
ARK Next Generation Technology ETF vs Alger 35 ETF
Which is better, ARKW or ATFV?
Each has led over a different period.
ATFV has a lower expense ratio. ARKW led over 3Y, ATFV over 1Y, 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 | ARKW | ATFV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.76% | 0.55%Best |
| AUM | $2.0B | $629M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.47% | 0.17% |
| Holdings | 88 | 36 |
| YTD Return | +7.08% | +10.86%Best |
| 1Y Return | -5.81% | +11.47%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +44.31%Best | +37.88% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +2.38% | +12.24%Best |
| Volatility (annualized) | 40.9% | 23.9%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -76.8% | -45.3%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $11,248 | $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).
ARKW 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.
ARKW vs ATFV Performance
ARK Next Generation Technology ETF (ARKW) is an ETF from Ark Invest and Alger 35 ETF (ATFV) is an ETF from Alger. Over the past year ARKW returned -5.81% while ATFV returned +11.47%. Year to date, ARKW is up 7.08% versus a gain of 10.86% for ATFV.
Over three years, ARKW compounded at +44.31% per year against +37.88% for ATFV; over five years the annualized figures are +2.38% and +12.24% respectively.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
ARKW has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 40.9% 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 -76.8% for ARKW 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 0.87. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
ARKW charges 0.76% per year while ATFV charges 0.55%. On a $10,000 position that is $76 vs $55 annually, a gap of $21 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ARKW currently yields 1.47% against 0.17% for ATFV.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of ARKW 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, ARKW or ATFV?
ARKW has an expense ratio of 0.76% while ATFV charges 0.55%. ATFV is the cheaper option, by $21 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, ARKW or ATFV?
Over the past year ARKW returned -5.81% 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, ARKW or ATFV?
ARKW has been the more volatile fund at 40.9% annualized versus 23.9% for ATFV. Worst drawdown: ARKW -76.8% vs ATFV -45.3%.
Should I hold both ARKW and ATFV?
ARKW and ATFV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.87, 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, ARKW or ATFV?
ARKW yields 1.47% while ATFV yields 0.17%, so ARKW currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is ATFV better than ARKW?
ATFV has a lower expense ratio. ARKW led over 3Y, ATFV over 1Y, 5Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.