RWLC vs YALL
Rayliant NxtGen Multifactor US Equity ETF vs Truth Social God Bless America ETF
Which is better, RWLC or YALL?
RWLC has been ahead.
RWLC has a lower expense ratio. RWLC led over 1Y. RWLC is less concentrated, with 37.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 52.2%.
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 | RWLC | YALL |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.32%Best | 0.65% |
| AUM | $100M | $82M |
| Dividend Yield | 12.70% | 0.48% |
| Holdings | 208 | 42 |
| YTD Return | +18.51%Best | -1.50% |
| 1Y Return | - | -4.36% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +18.55% |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.2%Best | 52.2% |
| Fund Family | The Advisors Inner Circle Fund | Truth Social Funds |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Dec 15, 2021 | Oct 10, 2022 |
Not shown on this pair: 5Y Return (annualized), Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window.
RWLC vs YALL 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.
RWLC vs YALL Performance
Rayliant NxtGen Multifactor US Equity ETF (RWLC) is an ETF from The Advisors Inner Circle Fund and Truth Social God Bless America ETF (YALL) is an ETF from Truth Social Funds. Year to date, RWLC is up 18.51% versus a loss of 1.50% for YALL.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Fees and Cost Over Time
RWLC charges 0.32% per year while YALL charges 0.65%. On a $10,000 position that is $32 vs $65 annually, a gap of $33 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, RWLC currently yields 12.70% against 0.48% for YALL.
Holdings Overlap
11.3% of RWLC's money is in holdings YALL also owns. 33.8% of YALL's money is in holdings RWLC also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
8 positions in common, counted across the 101 positions we hold weights for in RWLC and 39 in YALL, against full books of 208 and 42.
What only one of them owns
Measured across the 101 and 39 positions we hold weights for.
RWLC holds 91 positions YALL does not, 87.5% of the fund.
Largest: AAPL 9.08%, GOOGL 3.56%, GOOG 3.16%, MU 2.97%, MSFT 2.90%
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in RWLC | Weight in YALL | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDANvidia Corp | 6.55% | 7.72% | 1.17% |
| PLTRPalantir Technologies Inc | 1.03% | 7.67% | 6.64% |
| AVGOBroadcom Inc | 1.20% | 5.11% | 3.91% |
| TSLATesla Inc | 0.38% | 5.61% | 5.23% |
| COSTCostco Wholesale Corp. | 0.82% | 4.37% | 3.55% |
| NUENucor Corp. | 0.83% | 1.42% | 0.59% |
| CLColgate-Palmolive Co | 0.35% | 0.97% | 0.62% |
| TSNTyson Foods Inc. Class A | 0.10% | 0.94% | 0.84% |
33.8% of YALL is already inside RWLC.
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, RWLC or YALL?
RWLC has an expense ratio of 0.32% while YALL charges 0.65%. RWLC is the cheaper option, by $33 a year on a $10,000 investment.
What is the holdings overlap between RWLC and YALL?
33.8% of YALL's money is in holdings RWLC also owns. 33.8% of YALL's is in holdings RWLC also owns. They hold 8 positions in common, counted across the 101 positions we hold weights for in RWLC and 39 in YALL.
Which pays a higher dividend, RWLC or YALL?
RWLC yields 12.70% while YALL yields 0.48%, so RWLC currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is YALL better than RWLC?
RWLC has a lower expense ratio. RWLC led over 1Y. RWLC is less concentrated, with 37.2% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 52.2%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.