BSR vs RWLC
Beacon Unified Catalyst ETF vs Rayliant NxtGen Multifactor US Equity ETF
Which is better, BSR or RWLC?
RWLC has been ahead.
RWLC has a lower expense ratio. RWLC led over 1Y. RWLC is less concentrated, with 37.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 73.0%.
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 | BSR | RWLC |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.09% | 0.32%Best |
| AUM | $34M | $100M |
| Dividend Yield | 2.78% | 12.70% |
| Holdings | 60 | 208 |
| YTD Return | +4.18% | +18.51%Best |
| 1Y Return | +5.97% | - |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +8.36% | - |
| Top 10 Weight | 73.0% | 37.2%Best |
| Fund Family | Beacon Capital Management | The Advisors Inner Circle Fund |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Apr 17, 2023 | Dec 15, 2021 |
Not shown on this pair: 5Y Return (annualized), Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window.
BSR vs RWLC 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.
BSR vs RWLC Performance
Beacon Unified Catalyst ETF (BSR) is an ETF from Beacon Capital Management and Rayliant NxtGen Multifactor US Equity ETF (RWLC) is an ETF from The Advisors Inner Circle Fund. Year to date, BSR is up 4.18% versus a gain of 18.51% for RWLC.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Fees and Cost Over Time
BSR charges 1.09% per year while RWLC charges 0.32%. On a $10,000 position that is $109 vs $32 annually, a gap of $77 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, BSR currently yields 2.78% against 12.70% for RWLC.
Holdings Overlap
We hold position weights for 29 holdings in BSR and 101 in RWLC, totalling 99.8% and 98.8% 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 29 positions we hold weights for in BSR and 101 in RWLC, against full books of 60 and 208.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 99 positions for RWLC that do not appear in our book for BSR (98.8% of the fund), and 29 for BSR that do not appear in RWLC (99.8%).
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 BSR and RWLC 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, BSR or RWLC?
BSR has an expense ratio of 1.09% while RWLC charges 0.32%. RWLC is the cheaper option, by $77 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which pays a higher dividend, BSR or RWLC?
BSR yields 2.78% while RWLC yields 12.70%, so RWLC currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is RWLC better than BSR?
RWLC has a lower expense ratio. RWLC led over 1Y. RWLC is less concentrated, with 37.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 73.0%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.