ACES vs MFEM
ALPS Clean Energy ETF vs PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor Emerging Markets Equity ETF
Quick Verdict
MFEM has a lower expense ratio. MFEM delivered stronger 1-year returns. MFEM offers more diversification with 730 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | ACES | MFEM | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.55% | 0.49% | |
| AUM | $109M | $142M | |
| Dividend Yield | 1.22% | 2.14% | |
| Holdings | 38 | 730 | |
| YTD Return | -4.22% | +22.39% | |
| 1Y Return | +17.04% | +33.02% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | -7.96% | +20.17% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | -13.47% | +8.56% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 35.4% | 17.7% | |
| Max Drawdown | -79.0% | -45.3% | |
| Fund Family | ALPS Advisors | PIMCO (US) | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Jun 27, 2018 | Aug 31, 2017 |
ACES vs MFEM Performance
ALPS Clean Energy ETF (ACES) is a ETF from ALPS Advisors and PIMCO RAFI Dynamic Multi-Factor Emerging Markets Equity ETF (MFEM) is a ETF from PIMCO (US). Over the past year ACES returned +17.04% while MFEM returned +33.02%. Year to date, ACES is down 4.22% versus a gain of 22.39% for MFEM.
Over three years, ACES compounded at -7.96% per year against +20.17% for MFEM; over five years the annualized figures are -13.47% and +8.56% respectively. Across the full 8-year window we track, MFEM has the edge at +6.92% annualized vs +3.75%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
ACES has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 35.4% compared with 17.7% for MFEM. Lower volatility generally means a smoother ride, though it often comes with lower long-run returns.
The deepest peak-to-trough decline in our data was -79.0% for ACES and -45.3% for MFEM. Drawdown depth is worth weighing if you expect to sell during market stress rather than ride it out.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.57. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
ACES charges 0.55% per year while MFEM charges 0.49%. On a $10,000 position that is $55 vs $49 annually, a gap of $6 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, ACES currently yields 1.22% against 2.14% for MFEM.
Holdings Overlap
ACES and MFEM share 0 holdings out of 741 unique holdings combined, representing a 0.0% weight overlap.
Moderate overlap means holding both could provide meaningful diversification benefits.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, ACES or MFEM?
ACES has an expense ratio of 0.55% while MFEM charges 0.49%. MFEM is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $6 per year of difference.
Which performed better, ACES or MFEM?
Over the past year ACES returned +17.04% vs +33.02% for MFEM, so MFEM leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (8 years), ACES annualized +3.75% vs +6.92% for MFEM. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, ACES or MFEM?
ACES has been the more volatile fund at 35.4% annualized versus 17.7% for MFEM. Worst drawdown: ACES -79.0% vs MFEM -45.3%.
Should I hold both ACES and MFEM?
ACES and MFEM have a monthly-return correlation of 0.57, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between ACES and MFEM?
ACES and MFEM share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 741 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, ACES or MFEM?
ACES yields 1.22% while MFEM yields 2.14%, so MFEM currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Popular ETF Comparisons
Get Full ETF Analytics
Access complete holdings data, overlap analysis, screener tools, and more with FundXLS.