RWLC vs XVOL
Rayliant NxtGen Multifactor US Equity ETF vs Acruence Active Hedge US Equity ETF
Which is better, RWLC or XVOL?
RWLC has been ahead.
RWLC has a lower expense ratio. RWLC led over 1Y. XVOL is less concentrated, with 17.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.4%.
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 | RWLC | XVOL |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.32%Best | 0.83% |
| AUM | $98M | $2M |
| Dividend Yield | 12.72% | 2.00% |
| Holdings | 225 | 83 |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.4% | 17.8%Best |
| Fund Family | The Advisors Inner Circle Fund | Acruence Capital, LLC |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Dec 15, 2021 | Apr 21, 2021 |
Not shown on this pair: YTD Return, 1Y Return, 3Y Return (annualized), 5Y Return (annualized), Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window.
The two price series end 209 days apart, so a return over any period would be measuring two different stretches of market. Those rows are withheld. RWLC has data through Nov 11, 2026 and XVOL through Apr 16, 2026.
Fees and Cost Over Time
RWLC charges 0.32% per year while XVOL charges 0.83%. On a $10,000 position that is $32 vs $83 annually, a gap of $51 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, RWLC currently yields 12.72% against 2.00% for XVOL.
Holdings Overlap
35.3% of RWLC's money is in holdings XVOL also owns. 31.4% of XVOL's money is in holdings RWLC also owns.
The two portfolios partly overlap.
The two holdings books were reported 288 days apart, RWLC as of Oct 15, 2026 and XVOL as of Dec 31, 2025, so some of the difference between them is the time between the two reports rather than the funds.
23 positions in common, counted across the 108 positions we hold weights for in RWLC and 81 in XVOL, against full books of 225 and 83.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 57 positions for XVOL that do not appear in our book for RWLC (67.3% of the fund), and 83 for RWLC that do not appear in XVOL (64.3%).
Some of those will be the same company recorded under a different code in one of the two books, so the real difference in what you would own is no larger than this and may be smaller. We do not name the individual positions here for that reason.
Top Shared Holdings
| Stock | Weight in RWLC | Weight in XVOL | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| AAPLApple Inc | 9.19% | 1.16% | 8.03% |
| MSFTMicrosoft Corp | 3.91% | 0.94% | 2.97% |
| GOOGLAlphabet Inc | 3.36% | 1.37% | 1.99% |
| GOOGAlphabet Inc. C | 2.87% | 1.35% | 1.52% |
| LLYEli Lilly & Co | 2.28% | 1.60% | 0.68% |
| AMZNAmazon.Com Inc | 2.28% | 1.46% | 0.82% |
| GILDGilead Sciences | 2.12% | 1.13% | 0.99% |
| KLACKla Corp. | 0.14% | 2.28% | 2.14% |
| METAMeta Platforms Inc | 1.01% | 1.40% | 0.39% |
| REGNRegeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. | 0.84% | 1.56% | 0.72% |
35.3% of RWLC is already inside XVOL.
You probably hold more than these two. Add the rest and see how much of the whole book is the same companies twice.
Free for up to 10 holdings. No account needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which is cheaper, RWLC or XVOL?
RWLC has an expense ratio of 0.32% while XVOL charges 0.83%. RWLC is the cheaper option, by $51 a year on a $10,000 investment.
What is the holdings overlap between RWLC and XVOL?
35.3% of RWLC's money is in holdings XVOL also owns. 31.4% of XVOL's is in holdings RWLC also owns. They hold 23 positions in common, counted across the 108 positions we hold weights for in RWLC and 81 in XVOL.
Which pays a higher dividend, RWLC or XVOL?
RWLC yields 12.72% while XVOL yields 2.00%, so RWLC currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is XVOL better than RWLC?
RWLC has a lower expense ratio. RWLC led over 1Y. XVOL is less concentrated, with 17.8% of the fund in its ten largest positions against 37.4%. Which one suits a particular account depends on what it is for. This is information, not a recommendation.