Screener
BFOR vs RFG
Barron's 400 ETF vs Invesco S&P MidCap 400 Pure Growth ETF
Key differences
- RFG costs 0.30% less per year.
- RFG has a longer track record, which may reduce uncertainty around long-term behavior.
Side-by-side comparison
| BFOR | RFG | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.65% | 0.35% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $211M | $329M |
| Since | 2013 | 2006 |
| Dividend yield | 0.55% | 0.34% |
| Asset class | equity | equity |
| Region | north america | north america |
| Strategy | index tracking | index tracking |
| CAGR 1Y | +22.3% | +31.2% |
| CAGR 3Y | +20.1% | +19.6% |
| CAGR 5Y | +10.0% | +7.9% |
| Sharpe 3Y | 0.94 | 0.81 |
| Volatility 1Y | 14.92% | 18.50% |
| Max drawdown | -41.27% | -42.92% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to BFOR and RFG
Explore further