Four GARP ETFs Compared: The Real Cost of Strategy Execution

The Four Contenders

Before diving into performance, let's place all four ETFs on the same table. They all claim "Growth at a Reasonable Price," but their management styles, rule rigor, and scale differ profoundly:

Headline Numbers: Annualized Returns Compared

The table below shows annualized returns for all four ETFs as of March 31, 2026, alongside the S&P 500 benchmark. RVER and TCAF, both inception under three years, show only available periods:

Data sources: RVER and TCAF from issuer fact sheets; SPGP and GARP from Yahoo Finance, PortfoliosLab, and iShares fact sheets, as of March 31, 2026. 1-year periods may differ slightly across sources due to reporting cutoff dates.

Visualizing Compounding: Growth of $10,000

Annualized return percentages alone don't fully convey the compounding impact. The chart below illustrates what $10,000 invested at RVER's inception (April 2024) would have become by March 31, 2026, applied to each fund's annualized return:

Note: This chart is illustrative, designed to convey relative magnitude of differences. Actual figures vary based on cutoff date and dividend reinvestment assumptions. For rigorous backtesting, use Portfolio Visualizer or similar tools.

Observation 1: GARP (iShares) Is the Performance Leader

The iShares GARP fund is the clear winner of this comparison: a 17.80% annualized return over 5 years versus 11.5% for the S&P 500 — outperformance of 6.3 percentage points annualized. For an index ETF, this scale of alpha is essentially impossible to attribute to luck.

Why iShares GARP Performs Best

The key lies in its index construction allowing FANGMA exposure. The top five holdings — Meta, Microsoft, NVIDIA, Apple, and Lam Research — were all core beneficiaries of the AI growth complex over the past five years. The index methodology uses a four-factor scoring system (size × growth × value × quality) that does not impose overly strict valuation thresholds, allowing the fund to participate fully in mega-cap growth runs.

Observation 2: SPGP — Long-Term Winner, Short-Term Lagger

SPGP's 10-year annualized return of 13.04% materially outpaces the S&P 500's 10.71% over the same period. But Q1 2026 saw it lag substantially — the cause was the fund's most recent semi-annual rebalance, which significantly reduced energy exposure shortly before energy stocks rallied.

This reflects a structural feature of SPGP: strict rules drive significant sector weight changes, producing larger short-term performance variability — but the valuation discipline wins over longer horizons.

SPGP Most Closely Mirrors a Disciplined Screening Framework

SPGP's index methodology — 3-year EPS CAGR + 3-year SPS CAGR (growth score) → low financial leverage + high ROE + high earnings yield (quality/value composite) → top 75 names — is essentially a CANSLIM-spirit framework wrapped in ETF form. For investors wanting "rule-based, verifiable, screening-aligned" GARP exposure, SPGP is the most logically consistent choice.

Observation 3: RVER — The Sole Structural Loser

RVER's since-inception annualized return of 5.62% trails the benchmark's 13.49% by over 17 percentage points cumulatively. This is not short-term volatility but two years of accelerating divergence, indicating structural execution problems:

• Annual portfolio turnover of 232% — average holding period of 0.43 years, far exceeding the GARP long-hold expectation
• Significant style drift — top-10 holdings include EQT (natural gas), CDE (silver mining), CLSK (Bitcoin miner), IBRX (clinical-stage biotech), all non-GARP names
• 0.65% management fee fails to produce alpha — the worst combination of highest fees and worst performance

Observation 4: TCAF — A Template for Active GARP Done Right

TCAF has not dramatically outperformed since inception, but every quality metric is sound: 36.5% turnover (corresponding to ~2.7-year average hold, consistent with GARP philosophy), Morningstar Gold rating, $6.9B AUM with deep liquidity. It is also actively managed, but the execution quality stands in stark contrast to RVER.

RVER and TCAF form the most instructive comparison in this study — both are active GARP ETFs with similar expense ratios (0.65% vs. 0.31%), but turnover differs by 6x, AUM differs by 50x, and performance differs by an order of magnitude. The phrase "active management" by itself signifies nothing — execution discipline is what creates value.

The Four-Filter Framework Applied to Allocation

Mapping these four ETFs against a structured discipline framework produces a clear suitability ranking:

Final Allocation Recommendations

Final allocation logic for disciplined investors:

• Core position (70–80%): Choose either GARP or SPGP. GARP suits investors wanting "set and forget" long-term holdings; SPGP suits those preferring rules-based discipline aligned with screening principles.
• Satellite position (10–20%): If incorporating active management, TCAF is acceptable — but don't expect dramatic outperformance. Its value lies in bear market protection and long-term stability.
• Avoid: RVER fails on every dimension — there is no rationale for holding it.

Tracking Record

Next scheduled update: After Q3 2026 performance disclosures, verify whether the relative ranking of GARP and SPGP shifts.