FTGS vs SBIO
FTGS vs SBIO
First Trust Growth Strength ETF vs ALPS Medical Breakthroughs ETF
Quick Verdict
SBIO has a lower expense ratio. SBIO delivered stronger 1-year returns. SBIO offers more diversification with 105 holdings.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Metric | FTGS | SBIO | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.60% | 0.50% | |
| AUM | $1.3B | $202M | |
| Dividend Yield | 0.09% | 4.05% | |
| Holdings | 51 | 87 | |
| YTD Return | +12.49% | +34.80% | |
| 1Y Return | +14.75% | +106.24% | |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | +18.25% | +32.77% | |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +9.56% | |
| Volatility (annualized) | 14.6% | 29.6% | |
| Max Drawdown | -20.0% | -63.1% | |
| Fund Family | First Trust Portfolios (US) | ALPS Advisors | |
| Category | Equity | Equity | |
| Inception | Oct 25, 2022 | Dec 30, 2014 |
FTGS vs SBIO Performance
First Trust Growth Strength ETF (FTGS) is a ETF from First Trust Portfolios (US) and ALPS Medical Breakthroughs ETF (SBIO) is a ETF from ALPS Advisors. Over the past year FTGS returned +14.75% while SBIO returned +106.24%. Year to date, FTGS is up 12.49% versus a gain of 34.80% for SBIO.
Over three years, FTGS compounded at +18.25% per year against +32.77% for SBIO. Across the full 4-year window we track, FTGS has the edge at +19.84% annualized vs +9.80%. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Risk: Volatility and Drawdowns
SBIO has been the more volatile fund, with annualized monthly volatility of 29.6% compared with 14.6% for FTGS. 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 -20.0% for FTGS and -63.1% for SBIO. 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 0.36. They move independently enough that combining them can meaningfully diversify a portfolio.
Fees and Cost Over Time
FTGS charges 0.60% per year while SBIO charges 0.50%. On a $10,000 position that is $60 vs $50 annually, a gap of $10 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, FTGS currently yields 0.09% against 4.05% for SBIO.
Holdings Overlap
FTGS and SBIO share 0 holdings out of 155 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, FTGS or SBIO?
FTGS has an expense ratio of 0.60% while SBIO charges 0.50%. SBIO is the cheaper option. On a $10,000 investment, that is $10 per year of difference.
Which performed better, FTGS or SBIO?
Over the past year FTGS returned +14.75% vs +106.24% for SBIO, so SBIO leads on 1-year performance. Over the longest common window we track (4 years), FTGS annualized +19.84% vs +9.80% for SBIO. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Which is riskier, FTGS or SBIO?
SBIO has been the more volatile fund at 29.6% annualized versus 14.6% for FTGS. Worst drawdown: FTGS -20.0% vs SBIO -63.1%.
Should I hold both FTGS and SBIO?
FTGS and SBIO have a monthly-return correlation of 0.36, so combining them can provide real diversification depending on your allocation goals.
What is the holdings overlap between FTGS and SBIO?
FTGS and SBIO share 0 common holdings with a 0.0% weight overlap. Combined, they hold 155 unique securities.
Which pays a higher dividend, FTGS or SBIO?
FTGS yields 0.09% while SBIO yields 4.05%, so SBIO 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.