FTLS vs XOCT

FTLS vs XOCT

Which is better, FTLS or XOCT?

FTLS has been ahead.

XOCT has a lower expense ratio. FTLS led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window.

Lower Fees: XOCTHigher Returns: FTLS

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

MetricFTLSXOCT
Expense Ratio1.38%0.85%Best
AUM$2.7B$40M
Dividend Yield0.87%0.00%
Holdings36312
YTD Return+9.83%Best+7.21%
1Y Return+13.43%Best+9.63%
3Y Return (annualized)+14.42%Best+10.24%
5Y Return (annualized)+10.59%-
Volatility (annualized)7.0%4.5%Best
Max Drawdown-11.7%-10.0%Best
$10,000 over 3 years$15,328Best$13,397
Fund FamilyFirst Trust Portfolios (US)First Trust Portfolios (US)
CategoryAlternativeAlternative
StyleMulti AlternativeMulti Alternative
InceptionSep 8, 2014Oct 20, 2023

Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.

Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 3 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Oct 23, 2023 to Oct 14, 2026 (3 years).

FTLS vs XOCT 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 years both funds cover.

Compare FTLS against instead:FTLS vs SPYFTLS vs QQQFTLS vs VOOFTLS vs VTIXOCT against:XOCT vs VXUS

FTLS vs XOCT Performance

First Trust Long/Short Equity ETF (FTLS) is an ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US) and FT Vest US Equity Enhance & Moderate Buffer ETF - October (XOCT) is an ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US). Over the past year FTLS returned +13.43% while XOCT returned +9.63%. Year to date, FTLS is up 9.83% versus a gain of 7.21% for XOCT.

Over three years, FTLS compounded at +14.42% per year against +10.24% for XOCT.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns

FTLS has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 7.0% compared with 4.5% for XOCT. 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 -11.7% for FTLS and -10.0% for XOCT. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.

The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.76. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.

Fees and Cost Over Time

FTLS charges 1.38% per year while XOCT charges 0.85%. On a $10,000 position that is $138 vs $85 annually, a gap of $53 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FTLS currently yields 0.87% against 0.00% for XOCT.

You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.

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

FTLSXOCT

Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

Which is cheaper, FTLS or XOCT?

FTLS has an expense ratio of 1.38% while XOCT charges 0.85%. XOCT is the cheaper option, by $53 a year on a $10,000 investment.

Which performed better, FTLS or XOCT?

Over the past year FTLS returned +13.43% vs +9.63% for XOCT, so FTLS leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.

Which is riskier, FTLS or XOCT?

FTLS has been the more volatile fund at 7.0% annualized versus 4.5% for XOCT. Worst drawdown: FTLS -11.7% vs XOCT -10.0%.

Should I hold both FTLS and XOCT?

FTLS and XOCT have a monthly-return correlation of 0.76, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.

Which pays a higher dividend, FTLS or XOCT?

FTLS yields 0.87% while XOCT yields 0.00%, so FTLS currently pays the higher dividend yield.

Is XOCT better than FTLS?

XOCT has a lower expense ratio. FTLS led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.