FFOG vs XOVR
Franklin Focused Dynamic Growth ETF vs ERShares Private-Public Crossover ETF
Which is better, FFOG or XOVR?
FFOG has been ahead.
FFOG has a lower expense ratio. FFOG led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window.
MarketXLS is not an investment adviser. This comparison is generated automatically from market data and is for information only. A Best mark means the better reading on that one measure, not a recommendation to buy.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | FFOG | XOVR |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.41%Best | 1.81% |
| AUM | $341M | $1.4B |
| Dividend Yield | 0.00% | 0.00% |
| Holdings | 1,667 | 67 |
| YTD Return | +0.34% | +1.50%Best |
| 1Y Return | -2.04%Best | -2.78% |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +20.87%Best | +20.19% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +4.14% |
| Volatility (annualized) | 20.8%Best | 22.5% |
| Max Drawdown | -25.4% | -25.2%Best |
| $10,000 over 3 years | $18,087Best | $17,645 |
| Fund Family | Franklin Templeton Investments (US) | ERShares |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Growth | Large Cap Growth |
| Inception | Nov 6, 2023 | Nov 7, 2017 |
Not shown on this pair: Top 10 Weight.
Volatility and max drawdown, and the $10,000 over 3 years row, are measured over the window both funds cover: Nov 6, 2023 to Nov 11, 2026 (3 years).
FFOG vs XOVR growth
Month-end closes. Both lines start at 0% in the first month shown, so the gap between them is the difference in growth across that window. The full view covers the 3 years both funds cover.
FFOG vs XOVR Performance
Franklin Focused Dynamic Growth ETF (FFOG) is an ETF from Franklin Templeton Investments (US) and ERShares Private-Public Crossover ETF (XOVR) is an ETF from ERShares. Over the past year FFOG returned -2.04% while XOVR returned -2.78%. Year to date, FFOG is up 0.34% versus a gain of 1.50% for XOVR.
Over three years, FFOG compounded at +20.87% per year against +20.19% for XOVR.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
XOVR has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 22.5% compared with 20.8% for FFOG. 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 -25.4% for FFOG and -25.2% for XOVR. Drawdown depth is what each fund did in the worst stretch of the window measured above.
The two funds' monthly returns correlate at 0.84. They usually move together, but the gap leaves some room for diversification.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FFOG charges 0.41% per year while XOVR charges 1.81%. On a $10,000 position that is $41 vs $181 annually, a gap of $140 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FFOG currently yields 0.00% against 0.00% for XOVR.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of FFOG and XOVR you pick has to sit alongside everything else you own. Add the rest and see what the combination actually holds.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, FFOG or XOVR?
FFOG has an expense ratio of 0.41% while XOVR charges 1.81%. FFOG is the cheaper option, by $140 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, FFOG or XOVR?
Over the past year FFOG returned -2.04% vs -2.78% for XOVR, so FFOG leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which is riskier, FFOG or XOVR?
XOVR has been the more volatile fund at 22.5% annualized versus 20.8% for FFOG. Worst drawdown: FFOG -25.4% vs XOVR -25.2%.
Should I hold both FFOG and XOVR?
FFOG and XOVR have a monthly-return correlation of 0.84, so their returns are far enough apart for the mix to behave differently from either one alone. This is information, not a recommendation.
Which pays a higher dividend, FFOG or XOVR?
FFOG yields 0.00% while XOVR yields 0.00%, so XOVR currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is XOVR better than FFOG?
FFOG has a lower expense ratio. FFOG led over 1Y, 3Y and the full window. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.