CVLC vs RECS
Calvert US Large-Cap Core Responsible Index ETF vs Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF
Which is better, CVLC or RECS?
Each has led over a different period.
CVLC led over 1Y, RECS over 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.96. CVLC is less concentrated, with 38.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 42.0%.
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 | CVLC | RECS |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.15%Tie | 0.15%Tie |
| AUM | $1.0B | $6.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.93% | 1.01% |
| Holdings | 1,511 | 718 |
| YTD Return | +12.83%Best | +11.16% |
| 1Y Return | +17.38%Best | +15.54% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.00% | +22.44%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +13.81% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 13.2% | 11.5%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -19.9% | -18.6%Best |
| $10,000 over 3.7 years | $19,146 | $19,451Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 38.2%Best | 42.0% |
| Fund Family | Calvert | Columbia Threadneedle Investments |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jan 30, 2023 | Sep 25, 2019 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 3.7 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Feb 1, 2023 to Oct 14, 2026 (3.7 years).
CVLC vs RECS 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 3.7 years both funds cover.
CVLC vs RECS Performance
Calvert US Large-Cap Core Responsible Index ETF (CVLC) is an ETF from Calvert and Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF (RECS) is an ETF from Columbia Threadneedle Investments. Over the past year CVLC returned +17.38% while RECS returned +15.54%. Year to date, CVLC is up 12.83% versus a gain of 11.16% for RECS.
Over three years, CVLC compounded at +22.00% per year against +22.44% for RECS. Across the full 4-year window we track, RECS has the edge at +19.70% annualized vs +19.19%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
CVLC has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 13.2% compared with 11.5% for RECS. 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 -19.9% for CVLC and -18.6% for RECS. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.96. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
CVLC charges 0.15% per year while RECS charges 0.15%. On a $10,000 position that is $15 vs $15 annually. On income, CVLC currently yields 0.93% against 1.01% for RECS.
Holdings Overlap
38.7% of CVLC's money is in holdings RECS also owns. 77.6% of RECS's money is in holdings CVLC also owns.
Most of RECS is already inside CVLC. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
247 positions in common, counted across the 759 positions we hold weights for in CVLC and 353 in RECS, against full books of 1,511 and 718.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 92 positions for RECS that do not appear in our book for CVLC (21.1% of the fund), and 496 for CVLC that do not appear in RECS (60.6%).
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 CVLC | Weight in RECS | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 7.80% | 12.01% | 4.21% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 7.03% | 11.96% | 4.93% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.88% | 2.28% | 0.40% |
| MAMastercard Inc | 0.73% | 2.36% | 1.63% |
| BACBank of America Corp.: Financials | 0.66% | 2.04% | 1.38% |
| CSCOCisco Systems Inc. - Ordinary Shares | 0.73% | 1.05% | 0.32% |
| CCitigroup Inc. | 0.42% | 1.15% | 0.73% |
| TJXTjx Cos., Inc. | 0.23% | 1.24% | 1.01% |
| LRCXLam Research Corp | 0.71% | 0.73% | 0.02% |
| ABBVAbbvie Inc. | 0.81% | 0.63% | 0.18% |
77.6% of RECS is already inside CVLC.
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, CVLC or RECS?
CVLC has an expense ratio of 0.15% while RECS charges 0.15%. At the precision these are quoted to, they cost the same.
Which performed better, CVLC or RECS?
Over the past year CVLC returned +17.38% vs +15.54% for RECS, so CVLC leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), CVLC annualized +19.19% vs +19.70% for RECS. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, CVLC or RECS?
CVLC has been the more volatile fund at 13.2% annualized versus 11.5% for RECS. Worst drawdown: CVLC -19.9% vs RECS -18.6%.
Should I hold both CVLC and RECS?
CVLC and RECS have a monthly-return correlation of 0.96, 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 CVLC and RECS?
77.6% of RECS's money is in holdings CVLC also owns. 77.6% of RECS's is in holdings CVLC also owns. They hold 247 positions in common, counted across the 759 positions we hold weights for in CVLC and 353 in RECS.
Which pays a higher dividend, CVLC or RECS?
CVLC yields 0.93% while RECS yields 1.01%, so RECS currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is RECS better than CVLC?
CVLC led over 1Y, RECS over 3Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.96. CVLC is less concentrated, with 38.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 42.0%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.