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