Screener
RFFC vs APMU
ALPS Active Equity Opportunity ETF vs ActivePassive Intermediate Municipal Bond ETF
Key differences
- APMU costs 0.13% less per year.
- APMU is significantly larger than RFFC — larger funds tend to be more liquid and less likely to close.
- RFFC is classified as equity, while APMU is fixed income — different risk/return profiles.
- Over the last 3 years, RFFC has delivered higher annualized returns.
- RFFC has a longer track record, which may reduce uncertainty around long-term behavior.
Side-by-side comparison
| RFFC | APMU | |
|---|---|---|
| Annual cost (TER) | 0.48% | 0.35% |
| Fund size (AUM) | $29M | $224M |
| Since | 2016 | 2023 |
| Dividend yield | 0.74% | 2.64% |
| Asset class | equity | fixed income |
| Region | north america | north america |
| Strategy | active selection | active selection |
| CAGR 1Y | +29.1% | +3.9% |
| CAGR 3Y | +21.9% | +2.5% |
| CAGR 5Y | +12.6% | N/A |
| Sharpe 3Y | 1.24 | -0.37 |
| Volatility 1Y | 12.11% | 2.35% |
| Max drawdown | -36.26% | -4.39% |
Green dot indicates the better value for that metric. Performance data is historical and does not predict future results.
Similar to RFFC and APMU
Explore further