RWLC vs ZIG
Rayliant NxtGen Multifactor US Equity ETF vs The Acquirers Fund ETF
Which is better, RWLC or ZIG?
ZIG has been ahead.
RWLC has a lower expense ratio. ZIG led over 1Y. ZIG is less concentrated, with 35.4% 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 | ZIG |
|---|---|---|
| Expense Ratio | 0.32%Best | 0.75% |
| AUM | $98M | $32M |
| Dividend Yield | 12.72% | 1.68% |
| Holdings | 225 | 67 |
| YTD Return | +12.51%Best | +8.83% |
| 1Y Return | +10.78% | +14.36%Best |
| 3Y Return (annualized) | - | +11.43% |
| 5Y Return (annualized) | - | +7.98% |
| Top 10 Weight | 37.4% | 35.4%Best |
| Fund Family | The Advisors Inner Circle Fund | Acquirers Funds, LLC |
| Category | Equity | Equity |
| Style | Large Cap Blend | Large Cap Blend |
| Inception | Dec 15, 2021 | May 14, 2019 |
Not shown on this pair: Volatility (annualized), Max Drawdown, $10,000 over the window.
RWLC vs ZIG 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 is available from the range buttons; it is not the opening view here because over the whole period one of these two funds moves so much further than the other that its line would sit flat on the axis.
RWLC vs ZIG Performance
Rayliant NxtGen Multifactor US Equity ETF (RWLC) is an ETF from The Advisors Inner Circle Fund and The Acquirers Fund ETF (ZIG) is an ETF from Acquirers Funds, LLC. Over the past year RWLC returned +10.78% while ZIG returned +14.36%. Year to date, RWLC is up 12.51% versus a gain of 8.83% for ZIG.
Past performance does not guarantee future results.
Fees and Cost Over Time
RWLC charges 0.32% per year while ZIG charges 0.75%. On a $10,000 position that is $32 vs $75 annually, a gap of $43 per year that compounds over a long holding period. On income, RWLC currently yields 12.72% against 1.68% for ZIG.
Holdings Overlap
3.6% of RWLC's money is in holdings ZIG also owns. 16.2% of ZIG's money is in holdings RWLC also owns.
ZIG and RWLC share little of their money.
5 positions in common, counted across the 108 positions we hold weights for in RWLC and 32 in ZIG, against full books of 225 and 67.
What only one of them owns
Our book lists 27 positions for ZIG that do not appear in our book for RWLC (83.9% of the fund), and 101 for RWLC that do not appear in ZIG (96.0%).
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.
You are not choosing between two funds in isolation.
Whichever of RWLC and ZIG 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, RWLC or ZIG?
RWLC has an expense ratio of 0.32% while ZIG charges 0.75%. RWLC is the cheaper option, by $43 a year on a $10,000 investment.
Which performed better, RWLC or ZIG?
Over the past year RWLC returned +10.78% vs +14.36% for ZIG, so ZIG leads on 1-year performance. Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is information, not a recommendation.
What is the holdings overlap between RWLC and ZIG?
16.2% of ZIG's money is in holdings RWLC also owns. 16.2% of ZIG's is in holdings RWLC also owns. They hold 5 positions in common, counted across the 108 positions we hold weights for in RWLC and 32 in ZIG.
Which pays a higher dividend, RWLC or ZIG?
RWLC yields 12.72% while ZIG yields 1.68%, so RWLC currently pays the higher dividend yield.
Is ZIG better than RWLC?
RWLC has a lower expense ratio. ZIG led over 1Y. ZIG is less concentrated, with 35.4% 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.