RECI vs RECS
Columbia Research Enhanced Core Premium Income ETF vs Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF
Which is better, RECI or RECS?
RECS costs less.
RECS has a lower expense ratio.
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 | RECI | RECS |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.30% | 0.15%Best |
| AUM | $10M | $6.2B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.67% | 1.01% |
| Holdings | 715 | 718 |
| YTD Return | +2.97% | +11.16%Best |
| 1Y Return | - | +15.54% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +22.44% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +13.81% |
| Fund Family | Columbia Threadneedle Investments | Columbia Threadneedle Investments |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Jul 14, 2026 | Sep 25, 2019 |
Not shown on this pair: Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window, Top 10 Weight.
RECI 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 is available from the range buttons; it is not the opening view here because over the whole period one of these two funds moves so much further than the other that its line would sit flat on the axis.
RECI vs RECS Performance
Columbia Research Enhanced Core Premium Income ETF (RECI) is an ETF from Columbia Threadneedle Investments and Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF (RECS) is an ETF from Columbia Threadneedle Investments. Year to date, RECI is up 2.97% versus a gain of 11.16% for RECS.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Fees and Cost Over Time
RECI charges 0.30% per year while RECS charges 0.15%. On a $10,000 position that is $30 vs $15 annually, a gap of $15 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, RECI currently yields 0.67% against 1.01% for RECS.
Holdings Overlap
At least 99.1% of RECS's money is in holdings RECI also owns.
Stated as a floor: for RECI, our book for it covers 80.1% of that fund, so a holding it does not list is one we cannot count as shared. The real figure is this or higher.
Most of RECS is already inside RECI. Owning both mostly buys the same companies twice.
343 positions in common, counted across the 354 positions we hold weights for in RECI and 353 in RECS, against full books of 715 and 718.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in RECI | Weight in RECS | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 10.27% | 12.01% | 1.74% |
| AAPLApple, Inc | 9.59% | 11.96% | 2.37% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 3.76% | 4.79% | 1.03% |
| MUMicron Technology, Inc. | 2.01% | 2.28% | 0.27% |
| MAMastercard Inc | 1.83% | 2.36% | 0.53% |
| VOXVanguard Communication Services ETF | 1.68% | 2.17% | 0.49% |
| XLCCommunication Services Select | 2.04% | 1.53% | 0.51% |
| BACBank of America Corp.: Financials | 1.37% | 2.04% | 0.67% |
| CVXChevron Corp | 1.23% | 1.60% | 0.37% |
| TJXTjx Cos., Inc. | 1.04% | 1.24% | 0.20% |
99.1% of RECS is already inside RECI.
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, RECI or RECS?
RECI has an expense ratio of 0.30% while RECS charges 0.15%. RECS is the cheaper option, by $15 a year on a $10,000 investment.
What is the holdings overlap between RECI and RECS?
At least 99.1% of RECS's money is in holdings RECI also owns. Our book for RECI is partial, so the real figure is this or higher. They hold 343 positions in common, counted across the 354 positions we hold weights for in RECI and 353 in RECS.
Which pays a higher dividend, RECI or RECS?
RECI yields 0.67% while RECS yields 1.01%, so RECS currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is RECS better than RECI?
RECS has a lower expense ratio. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.