FLCC vs RECS
Federated Hermes MDT Large Cap Core ETF vs Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF
Which is better, FLCC or RECS?
Nearly the same fund. RECS costs less.
RECS has a lower expense ratio. FLCC led over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.95. FLCC is less concentrated, with 38.9% 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 | FLCC | RECS |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.29% | 0.15%Best |
| AUM | $179M | $6.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.45% | 1.01% |
| Holdings | 304 | 718 |
| YTD Return | +12.79%Best | +11.16% |
| 1Y Return | +16.11%Best | +15.54% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +22.44% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +13.81% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 12.4% | 11.0%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -19.2% | -18.6%Best |
| $10,000 over 2.2 years | $14,419Best | $14,235 |
| Top 10 Weight | 38.9%Best | 42.0% |
| Fund Family | Federated Hermes | Columbia Threadneedle Investments |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jul 30, 2024 | Sep 25, 2019 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 2.2 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Jul 31, 2024 to Oct 14, 2026 (2.2 years).
FLCC 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 2.2 years both funds cover.
FLCC vs RECS Performance
Federated Hermes MDT Large Cap Core ETF (FLCC) is an ETF from Federated Hermes and Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF (RECS) is an ETF from Columbia Threadneedle Investments. Over the past year FLCC returned +16.11% while RECS returned +15.54%. Year to date, FLCC is up 12.79% versus a gain of 11.16% for RECS.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
FLCC has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 12.4% compared with 11.0% 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 -19.2% for FLCC 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 0.95. They move almost in lockstep, so holding both mostly duplicates the same exposure.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FLCC charges 0.29% per year while RECS charges 0.15%. On a $10,000 position that is $29 vs $15 annually, a gap of $14 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FLCC currently yields 0.45% against 1.01% for RECS.
Holdings Overlap
49.8% of FLCC's money is in holdings RECS also owns. 50.5% of RECS's money is in holdings FLCC also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
62 positions in common, counted across the 155 positions we hold weights for in FLCC and 353 in RECS, against full books of 304 and 718.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 274 positions for RECS that do not appear in our book for FLCC (47.9% of the fund), and 86 for FLCC that do not appear in RECS (50.0%).
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 FLCC | Weight in RECS | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 8.62% | 12.01% | 3.39% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 6.81% | 11.96% | 5.15% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 1.23% | 4.79% | 3.56% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.44% | 2.28% | 0.84% |
| ABBVAbbvie Inc. | 2.18% | 0.63% | 1.55% |
| CRWDCrowdstrike Holdings Inc | 1.68% | 0.48% | 1.20% |
| FTNTFortinet Inc | 1.80% | 0.22% | 1.58% |
| STTState Street Corp. | 1.75% | 0.26% | 1.49% |
| BKBank Of New York Mellon Corp | 1.40% | 0.57% | 0.83% |
| NEMNewmont Corp Common | 1.00% | 0.71% | 0.29% |
50.5% of RECS is already inside FLCC.
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, FLCC or RECS?
FLCC has an expense ratio of 0.29% while RECS charges 0.15%. RECS is the cheaper option, by $14 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FLCC or RECS?
Over the past year FLCC returned +16.11% vs +15.54% for RECS, so FLCC leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (2 years), FLCC annualized +18.10% vs +17.41% for RECS. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FLCC or RECS?
FLCC has been the more volatile fund at 12.4% annualized versus 11.0% for RECS. Worst drawdown: FLCC -19.2% vs RECS -18.6%.
Should I hold both FLCC and RECS?
FLCC and RECS have a monthly-return correlation of 0.95, 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 FLCC and RECS?
50.5% of RECS's money is in holdings FLCC also owns. 50.5% of RECS's is in holdings FLCC also owns. They hold 62 positions in common, counted across the 155 positions we hold weights for in FLCC and 353 in RECS.
Which pays a higher dividend, FLCC or RECS?
FLCC yields 0.45% while RECS yields 1.01%, so RECS currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is RECS better than FLCC?
RECS has a lower expense ratio. FLCC led over 1Y and the full window. The two have moved almost in lockstep, correlation 0.95. FLCC is less concentrated, with 38.9% 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.