HF vs RSST
DGA Core Plus Absolute Return ETF vs Return Stacked US Stocks & Managed Futures ETF
Which is better, HF or RSST?
RSST has been ahead.
RSST has a lower expense ratio. RSST led over 1Y and the full window.
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 | HF | RSST |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 1.70% | 0.99%Best |
| AUM | $21M | $602M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.89% | 0.23% |
| Holdings | 57 | 36 |
| Volatility (annualized) | 7.1%Best | 15.3% |
| Max Drawdown | -3.9%Best | -18.2% |
| $10,000 over 1.3 years | $11,725 | $12,352Best |
| Fund Family | Days Global Advisors | Return Stacked ETF |
| Category | Alternative | Alternative |
| Style | Multi Alternative | Multi Alternative |
| Inception | Aug 2, 2023 | Sep 6, 2023 |
Not shown on this pair: YTD Return, 1Y Return, 3Y Return (annualized), 5Y Return (annualized), Top 10 Weight.
The two price series end 671 days apart, so a return over any period would be measuring two different stretches of market. Those rows are withheld. HF has data through Dec 12, 2024 and RSST through Oct 14, 2026.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 1.3 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Sep 6, 2023 to Dec 12, 2024 (1.3 years).
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
RSST has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 15.3% compared with 7.1% for HF. 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 -3.9% for HF and -18.2% for RSST. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.56. They move together some of the time, and apart the rest.
Fees and Cost Over Time
HF charges 1.70% per year while RSST charges 0.99%. On a $10,000 position that is $170 vs $99 annually, a gap of $71 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, HF currently yields 0.89% against 0.23% for RSST.
Holdings Overlap
At least 49.8% of HF's money is in holdings RSST also owns.
Stated as a floor: for RSST, our book for it covers 88.8% of that fund, so a holding it does not list is one we cannot count as shared. The real figure is this or higher.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
1 positions in common, counted across the 16 positions we hold weights for in HF and 2 in RSST, against full books of 57 and 36.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in HF | Weight in RSST | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| FGXXXFirst American Government Obligations Fund | 49.75% | 14.34% | 35.41% |
49.8% of HF is already inside RSST.
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, HF or RSST?
HF has an expense ratio of 1.70% while RSST charges 0.99%. RSST is the cheaper option, by $71 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which is riskier, HF or RSST?
RSST has been the more volatile fund at 15.3% annualized versus 7.1% for HF. Worst drawdown: HF -3.9% vs RSST -18.2%.
Should I hold both HF and RSST?
HF and RSST have a monthly-return correlation of 0.56, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between HF and RSST?
At least 49.8% of HF's money is in holdings RSST also owns. Our book for RSST is partial, so the real figure is this or higher. They hold 1 positions in common, counted across the 16 positions we hold weights for in HF and 2 in RSST.
Which pays a higher dividend, HF or RSST?
HF yields 0.89% while RSST yields 0.23%, so HF currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is RSST better than HF?
RSST has a lower expense ratio. RSST led over 1Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.