KONG vs LOWV
Formidable Fortress ETF vs AB US Low Volatility Equity ETF
Which is better, KONG or LOWV?
Each has led over a different period.
LOWV has a lower expense ratio. KONG led over 1Y, LOWV over 3Y and the full window. LOWV is less concentrated, with 42.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 43.3%.
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 | KONG | LOWV |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.89% | 0.39%Best |
| AUM | $23M | $206M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.34% | 0.87% |
| Holdings | 106 | 71 |
| YTD Return | +8.48% | +8.98%Best |
| 1Y Return | +9.69%Best | +9.29% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +9.30% | +16.12%Best |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | +6.61% | - |
| Volatility (annualized) | 9.8% | 9.7%Best |
| Max Drawdown | -15.5% | -13.9%Best |
| $10,000 over 3.6 years | $14,029 | $17,794Best |
| Top 10 Weight | 43.3% | 42.0%Best |
| Fund Family | Formidable Funds | AllianceBernstein L.P. |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Mid Cap Blend | Mid Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jul 21, 2021 | Mar 22, 2023 |
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 3.6 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Mar 22, 2023 to Oct 14, 2026 (3.6 years).
KONG vs LOWV 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 3.6 years both funds cover.
KONG vs LOWV Performance
Formidable Fortress ETF (KONG) is an ETF from Formidable Funds and AB US Low Volatility Equity ETF (LOWV) is an ETF from AllianceBernstein L.P.. Over the past year KONG returned +9.69% while LOWV returned +9.29%. Year to date, KONG is up 8.48% versus a gain of 8.98% for LOWV.
Over three years, KONG compounded at +9.30% per year against +16.12% for LOWV. Across the full 4-year window we track, LOWV has the edge at +17.36% annualized vs +9.86%.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
KONG has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 9.8% compared with 9.7% for LOWV. 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 -15.5% for KONG and -13.9% for LOWV. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.75. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
KONG charges 0.89% per year while LOWV charges 0.39%. On a $10,000 position that is $89 vs $39 annually, a gap of $50 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, KONG currently yields 0.34% against 0.87% for LOWV.
Holdings Overlap
32.1% of KONG's money is in holdings LOWV also owns. 23.9% of LOWV's money is in holdings KONG also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
9 positions in common, counted across the 34 positions we hold weights for in KONG and 68 in LOWV, against full books of 106 and 71.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 52 positions for LOWV that do not appear in our book for KONG (68.8% of the fund), and 25 for KONG that do not appear in LOWV (68.9%).
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 KONG | Weight in LOWV | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 6.30% | 6.01% | 0.29% |
| NVDANvidia Corp | 3.89% | 6.67% | 2.78% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc. C | 2.73% | 5.75% | 3.02% |
| NOWServicenow, Inc. | 6.66% | 0.83% | 5.83% |
| CBOEC B O E Holdings Inc. | 3.00% | 1.03% | 1.97% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 3.07% | 0.74% | 2.33% |
| SPGIS&p Global Inc. | 2.47% | 0.93% | 1.54% |
| ADPAutomatic Data Processing, Inc. | 1.98% | 1.11% | 0.87% |
| MNSTMonster Beverage Corp. | 1.98% | 0.79% | 1.19% |
32.1% of KONG is already inside LOWV.
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, KONG or LOWV?
KONG has an expense ratio of 0.89% while LOWV charges 0.39%. LOWV is the cheaper option, by $50 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, KONG or LOWV?
Over the past year KONG returned +9.69% vs +9.29% for LOWV, so KONG leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), KONG annualized +9.86% vs +17.36% for LOWV. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, KONG or LOWV?
KONG has been the more volatile fund at 9.8% annualized versus 9.7% for LOWV. Worst drawdown: KONG -15.5% vs LOWV -13.9%.
Should I hold both KONG and LOWV?
KONG and LOWV have a monthly-return correlation of 0.75, 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 KONG and LOWV?
32.1% of KONG's money is in holdings LOWV also owns. 23.9% of LOWV's is in holdings KONG also owns. They hold 9 positions in common, counted across the 34 positions we hold weights for in KONG and 68 in LOWV.
Which pays a higher dividend, KONG or LOWV?
KONG yields 0.34% while LOWV yields 0.87%, so LOWV currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is LOWV better than KONG?
LOWV has a lower expense ratio. KONG led over 1Y, LOWV over 3Y and the full window. LOWV is less concentrated, with 42.0% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 43.3%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.