Screener
BFOR vs OMFL
Barron's 400 ETF vs Invesco Russell 1000 Dynamic Multifactor ETF
Key differences
- OMFL costs 0.36% less per year.
- OMFL is significantly larger than BFOR — larger funds tend to be more liquid and less likely to close.
- BFOR is classified as equity, while OMFL is alternative — different risk/return profiles.
- BFOR follows a index tracking strategy; OMFL uses systematic alpha.
- Over the last 3 years, BFOR has delivered higher annualized returns.
Side-by-side comparison
| BFOR | OMFL | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.65% | 0.29% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $211M | $4.6B |
| Since | 2013 | 2017 |
| Dividend yield | 0.55% | 0.78% |
| Asset class | equity | alternative |
| Region | north america | north america |
| Strategy | index tracking | systematic alpha |
| CAGR 1Y | +22.3% | +23.5% |
| CAGR 3Y | +20.1% | +14.3% |
| CAGR 5Y | +10.0% | +9.4% |
| Sharpe 3Y | 0.94 | 0.74 |
| Volatility 1Y | 14.92% | 12.16% |
| Max drawdown | -41.27% | -33.24% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to BFOR and OMFL
Explore further