CCSO vs RWLC

CCSO vs RWLC

Which is better, CCSO 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 49.7%.

Lower Fees: RWLCHigher Returns (1Y): RWLCLess Concentrated: RWLC

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

MetricCCSORWLC
Expense Ratio0.35%0.32%Best
AUM$45M$100M
Dividend Yield0.64%12.70%
Holdings124208
YTD Return-3.16%+18.51%Best
1Y Return-5.92%-
3Y Return (annualized)+11.97%-
Top 10 Weight49.7%37.2%Best
Fund FamilyCarbon Collective FundsThe Advisors Inner Circle Fund
CategoryEquityEquity
StyleLarge Cap BlendLarge Cap Blend
InceptionSep 19, 2022Dec 15, 2021

Not shown on this pair: 5Y Return (annualized), Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window.

CCSO 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.

Compare CCSO against instead:CCSO vs SPYCCSO vs QQQCCSO vs VOOCCSO vs VTIRWLC against:RWLC vs VXUS

CCSO vs RWLC Performance

Carbon Collective Climate Solutions US Equity ETF (CCSO) is an ETF from Carbon Collective Funds and Rayliant NxtGen Multifactor US Equity ETF (RWLC) is an ETF from The Advisors Inner Circle Fund. Year to date, CCSO is down 3.16% versus a gain of 18.51% for RWLC.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Fees and Cost Over Time

CCSO charges 0.35% per year while RWLC charges 0.32%. On a $10,000 position that is $35 vs $32 annually, a gap of $3 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, CCSO currently yields 0.64% against 12.70% for RWLC.

Holdings Overlap

CCSO already in RWLC10.5%
RWLC already in CCSO1.6%

10.5% of CCSO's money is in holdings RWLC also owns. 1.6% of RWLC's money is in holdings CCSO also owns.

CCSO and RWLC share little of their money.

2 positions in common, counted across the 123 positions we hold weights for in CCSO and 101 in RWLC, against full books of 124 and 208.

What only one of them owns

Our book lists 97 positions for RWLC that do not appear in our book for CCSO (97.1% of the fund), and 90 for CCSO that do not appear in RWLC (74.9%).

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

StockWeight in CCSOWeight in RWLCDifference
NUENucor Corp.5.53%0.83%4.70%
GEVGe Vernova, Inc.5.00%0.81%4.19%

You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.

Whichever of CCSO and RWLC you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.

CCSORWLC

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, CCSO or RWLC?

CCSO has an expense ratio of 0.35% while RWLC charges 0.32%. RWLC is the cheaper option, by $3 a year on a $10,000 investment.

What is the holdings overlap between CCSO and RWLC?

10.5% of CCSO's money is in holdings RWLC also owns. 1.6% of RWLC's is in holdings CCSO also owns. They hold 2 positions in common, counted across the 123 positions we hold weights for in CCSO and 101 in RWLC.

Which pays a higher dividend, CCSO or RWLC?

CCSO yields 0.64% while RWLC yields 12.70%, so RWLC currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is RWLC better than CCSO?

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 49.7%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.