QRFT vs RJCA
Qraft AI-Enhanced US Large Cap ETF vs RJ ClariVest Capital Appreciation ETF
Which is better, QRFT or RJCA?
RJCA has been ahead.
RJCA has a lower expense ratio. RJCA led over 1Y. QRFT is less concentrated, with 45.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 57.0%.
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 | QRFT | RJCA |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.75% | 0.61%Best |
| AUM | $9M | $617M |
| Dividend Yield | 0.25% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 301 | 72 |
| Volatility (annualized) | 17.6% | - |
| Max Drawdown | -30.2% | - |
| Top 10 Weight | 45.5%Best | 57.0% |
| Fund Family | QRAFT AI ETFs | Carillon Family of Funds |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | May 20, 2019 | Mar 21, 2006 |
Not shown on this pair: YTD Return, 1Y Return, 3Y Return (annualized), 5Y Return (annualized), $10,000 over the window.
The two price series end 85 days apart, so a return over any period would be measuring two different stretches of market. Those rows are withheld. QRFT has data through Jul 21, 2026 and RJCA through Oct 14, 2026.
Fees and Cost Over Time
QRFT charges 0.75% per year while RJCA charges 0.61%. On a $10,000 position that is $75 vs $61 annually, a gap of $14 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, QRFT currently yields 0.25% against 0.00% for RJCA.
Holdings Overlap
54.0% of QRFT's money is in holdings RJCA also owns. 70.0% of RJCA's money is in holdings QRFT also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
The two holdings books were reported 153 days apart, QRFT as of Apr 30, 2026 and RJCA as of Sep 30, 2026, so some of the difference between them is the time between the two reports rather than the funds.
37 positions in common, counted across the 294 positions we hold weights for in QRFT and 71 in RJCA, against full books of 301 and 72.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 33 positions for RJCA that do not appear in our book for QRFT (29.0% of the fund), and 244 for QRFT that do not appear in RJCA (43.4%).
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 QRFT | Weight in RJCA | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 9.65% | 15.22% | 5.57% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 9.21% | 7.19% | 2.02% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 4.70% | 4.73% | 0.03% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 4.11% | 5.18% | 1.07% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 5.92% | 1.94% | 3.98% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 2.76% | 3.16% | 0.40% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 1.72% | 3.87% | 2.15% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co. | 2.00% | 3.09% | 1.09% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 3.26% | 1.66% | 1.60% |
| AMDAdvanced Micro Devices Inc | 1.52% | 3.06% | 1.54% |
70.0% of RJCA is already inside QRFT.
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, QRFT or RJCA?
QRFT has an expense ratio of 0.75% while RJCA charges 0.61%. RJCA is the cheaper option, by $14 a year on a $10,000 investment.
What is the holdings overlap between QRFT and RJCA?
70.0% of RJCA's money is in holdings QRFT also owns. 70.0% of RJCA's is in holdings QRFT also owns. They hold 37 positions in common, counted across the 294 positions we hold weights for in QRFT and 71 in RJCA.
Which pays a higher dividend, QRFT or RJCA?
QRFT yields 0.25% while RJCA yields 0.00%, so QRFT currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is RJCA better than QRFT?
RJCA has a lower expense ratio. RJCA led over 1Y. QRFT is less concentrated, with 45.5% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 57.0%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.