FFLC vs RFDA
Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Core ETF vs ALPS Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF
Which is better, FFLC or RFDA?
Each has led over a different period.
FFLC has a lower expense ratio. FFLC led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, RFDA over 1Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.90. RFDA is less concentrated, with 30.6% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 41.9%.
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 | FFLC | RFDA |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.38%Best | 0.52% |
| AUM | $1.2B | $77M |
| Dividend Yield | 1.01% | 2.00% |
| Holdings | 216 | 77 |
| YTD Return | +9.90% | +14.73%Best |
| 1Y Return | +14.13% | +16.68%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +22.06%Best | +20.07% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +15.97%Best | +12.87% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 15.8% | 14.5%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -19.7% | -19.4%Best |
| $10,000 over 5 years | $20,976Best | $18,319 |
| Top 10 Weight | 41.9% | 30.6%Best |
| Fund Family | Fidelity Investments (US) | ALPS Advisors |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Value | Large Cap Value |
| Inception | Jun 2, 2020 | Jun 6, 2016 |
Volatility and max drawdown are measured over the window both funds cover: Jun 4, 2020 to Oct 14, 2026 (6.4 years).
FFLC vs RFDA 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 6.4 years both funds cover.
FFLC vs RFDA Performance
Fidelity Fundamental Large Cap Core ETF (FFLC) is an ETF from Fidelity Investments (US) and ALPS Dynamic US Dividend Advantage ETF (RFDA) is an ETF from ALPS Advisors. Over the past year FFLC returned +14.13% while RFDA returned +16.68%. Year to date, FFLC is up 9.90% versus a gain of 14.73% for RFDA.
Over three years, FFLC compounded at +22.06% per year against +20.07% for RFDA; over five years the annualized figures are +15.97% and +12.87% respectively. Across the full 6-year window we track, FFLC has the edge at +19.16% annualized vs +15.73%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
FFLC has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.8% compared with 14.5% for RFDA. 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 -19.7% for FFLC and -19.4% for RFDA. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.90. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FFLC charges 0.38% per year while RFDA charges 0.52%. On a $10,000 position that is $38 vs $52 annually, a gap of $14 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FFLC currently yields 1.01% against 2.00% for RFDA.
Holdings Overlap
32.5% of FFLC's money is in holdings RFDA also owns. 31.5% of RFDA's money is in holdings FFLC also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
18 positions in common, counted across the 108 positions we hold weights for in FFLC and 75 in RFDA, against full books of 216 and 77.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 55 positions for RFDA that do not appear in our book for FFLC (67.1% of the fund), and 79 for FFLC that do not appear in RFDA (61.7%).
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 FFLC | Weight in RFDA | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp. | 8.82% | 3.52% | 5.30% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp 4.100 Feb 06 37 | 4.64% | 2.68% | 1.96% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 4.44% | 2.07% | 2.37% |
| 2330:TWTaiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Ltd | 2.54% | 2.11% | 0.43% |
| XOMExxon Mobil Corp. | 2.06% | 2.06% | 0.00% |
| UNHUnited Healthcare Corp. | 1.18% | 2.76% | 1.58% |
| JNJJohnson & Johnson - Common | 0.25% | 3.15% | 2.90% |
| KOCoca-Cola Co/The | 0.73% | 2.53% | 1.80% |
| WFCWells Fargo & Co. | 1.62% | 1.38% | 0.24% |
| MRKMerck & Co. Inc. | 0.67% | 2.30% | 1.63% |
32.5% of FFLC is already inside RFDA.
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, FFLC or RFDA?
FFLC has an expense ratio of 0.38% while RFDA charges 0.52%. FFLC is the cheaper option, by $14 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FFLC or RFDA?
Over the past year FFLC returned +14.13% vs +16.68% for RFDA, so RFDA leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (6 years), FFLC annualized +19.16% vs +15.73% for RFDA. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FFLC or RFDA?
FFLC has been the more volatile fund at 15.8% annualized versus 14.5% for RFDA. Worst drawdown: FFLC -19.7% vs RFDA -19.4%.
Should I hold both FFLC and RFDA?
FFLC and RFDA have a monthly-return correlation of 0.90, 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 FFLC and RFDA?
32.5% of FFLC's money is in holdings RFDA also owns. 31.5% of RFDA's is in holdings FFLC also owns. They hold 18 positions in common, counted across the 108 positions we hold weights for in FFLC and 75 in RFDA.
Which pays a higher dividend, FFLC or RFDA?
FFLC yields 1.01% while RFDA yields 2.00%, so RFDA currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is RFDA better than FFLC?
FFLC has a lower expense ratio. FFLC led over 3Y, 5Y and the full window, RFDA over 1Y. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.90. RFDA is less concentrated, with 30.6% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 41.9%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.