Screener
ADIV vs EFAD
Guinness Atkinson Asia Pacific Dividend Builder ETF vs ProShares MSCI EAFE Dividend Growers ETF
Key differences
- EFAD costs 0.28% less per year.
- ADIV follows a active selection strategy; EFAD uses index tracking.
- Over the last 3 years, ADIV has delivered higher annualized returns.
- ADIV has a longer track record, which may reduce uncertainty around long-term behavior.
Side-by-side comparison
| ADIV | EFAD | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.78% | 0.50% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $55M | $62M |
| Since | 2006 | 2014 |
| Dividend yield | 2.78% | 2.82% |
| Asset class | equity | equity |
| Region | — | — |
| Strategy | active selection | index tracking |
| CAGR 1Y | +19.2% | +4.7% |
| CAGR 3Y | +17.1% | +6.1% |
| CAGR 5Y | +7.1% | +1.3% |
| Sharpe 3Y | 0.85 | 0.25 |
| Volatility 1Y | 13.26% | 13.36% |
| Max drawdown | -31.55% | -35.74% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to ADIV and EFAD
Explore further