What's the Decade's Most Successful ETF Launch?
From JEPI to XLC, CFRA researcher and etf.com editorial board member Aniket Ullal breaks down the winners.
2024 is going to be another record year for ETF launches in the U.S.
Given this rapid rate of product introductions, it is useful to review the success rate of ETFs launched over the past decade. We examine all ETFs launched in the U.S. between July 1, 2014, and June 30, 2024, including Exchange Traded Notes (ETNs), commodity ETPs, leveraged products and semi-transparent active ETFs. The analysis excludes ETFs that were converted from existing mutual funds, since these were not ‘greenfield’ launches.
There were 3,246 “greenfield” (non-converted) ETFs listed in the U.S. in the decade between July 1,2014 and June 30, 2024. These ETFs were classified into outcome buckets based on their peak assets between July 1, 2014, and September 30, 2024 (to give every ETF at least three months since launch).
As shown in Figure 1, 38% were viable (defined as staying listed and exceeding $100 million in peak assets) and 10% exceeded $1 billion in peak assets.
Figure 1: Outcomes (By Peak Assets) For U.S. ETFs Launched in the Last 10 Years

Table 1 lists the 10 most successful ETF launches based on peak assets reached in the measurement period. Many of these ETFs were successful because they won in a category that offered something new to investors, e.g., IBIT was the most successful of the spot bitcoin ETFs and JEPI pioneered the covered call category. Some ETFs such as the ARK Innovation ETF (ARKK) and iShares ESG Aware MSCI USA ETF (ESGU), while spectacularly successful, were unable to sustain that momentum, with significant asset declines from their peak.
Table 1: Ten Most Successful U.S. ETF Launches in the Last Decade by Peak Assets
The path to reaching $1billion also varied significantly. IBIT reached $1 billion in just seven days. By contrast, the Pacer US Cash Cows 100 ETF (COWZ) took almost 5 years to reach $1 billion, but then accelerated rapidly.
Figure 2: Days to reach $1billion in assets for select ETFs

As highlighted in Figure 2, successful ETFs can often exhibit a hockey stick growth pattern on their path to the $1 billion threshold. This may happen when the investment exposure is truly differentiated and matches the prevailing investment zeitgeist. IBIT tapped into latent demand for a spot bitcoin ETF, which existed because prior crypto investment options like futures based crypto ETPs and closed end fund structures had drawbacks. Bond ETFs like the JPMorgan Ultra-Short Income ETF (JPST) and iShares 0-3 Month Treasury Bond ETF (SGOV) grew during a period when investors were looking for shorter duration bond exposure as the U.S. Federal Reserve began an aggressive rate hiking cycle. The Invesco NASDAQ 100 ETF (QQQM) grew as investors were looking for a Magnificent-7 proxy when mega cap tech names outperformed in 2023-24. (QQQM’s more expensive “parent” fund QQQ also benefited from this trend but was listed prior to our measurement decade).
However, this investor interest can sometimes be difficult to sustain, particularly for active and thematic funds, if the investing environment moves against the fund. For example, ARKK, which has historically been overweight TSLA, rode the wave of that stock’s rapid price appreciation between Q1 2020 and Q4 2021. Capitalizing on investor interest in growth-oriented stocks like TSLA enabled ARKK to become the largest active ETF at the time, reaching peak assets of $28.2 billion. However, a subsequent correction in TSLA and being underweight the other ‘Magnificent-7’ stocks resulted in ARKK substantially underperforming the S&P 500 in 2021, 2022 and the first three quarters of 2024, eventually leading to a significant decline in assets.
Figure 3: Assets in ARKK vs TSLA stock price since ARKK launch

This challenge of sustaining asset growth for active and thematic ETFs is also highlighted by the example of ESGU. The ETF grew to an asset peak of $25.8 billion in Q1 2022. However, the politicization of ESG investing and the fund’s underperformance in 2022 due to the strong performance of the energy sector, resulted in registered investment advisors (RIAs) and model portfolio providers rotating out of the ETF. As of September 30, 2024, the fund only had about half of the assets relative to its peak.
While timing the launch and promotion of an ETF to match the investing environment is important to success, there are cases where an ETF can be successful due to the specific dynamics of the indexing or ETF industry. For example, the SPDR Communication Services Select Sector SPDR Fund (XLC) was launched in 2018 by State Street after a new Communications Services GICS sector was created. The fund was practically guaranteed to be successful since the Global Industry Classification Standard (GICS), which is jointly maintained by S&P Dow Jones and MSCI, is the most widely used industry classification framework. Many institutional and retail investors use the Select Sector SPDRs as their default sector investment vehicles of choice, and therefore this sector fund was guaranteed to have inflows.
Launch Outcomes for Active vs. Indexed ETFs
One of the defining ETF trends of the last few years has been the growth in active (non-indexed) ETF listings. An open question is how successful these products will be relative to indexed ETFs. During our ten-year measurement period, 36% of indexed ETFs reached viability (defined as still being listed and having had peak assets exceeding $100 million). In that same period, the corresponding number for active ETFs was a similar 39%.
It is important to note that many active ETFs have launched relatively recently, and therefore may not have had time to reach scale yet. If we look at data for just the first five years of our measurement period, which gives funds enough time to reach scale before they are evaluated, the viability rate for indexed ETFs stays stable at 39%, but for active ETFs it rises to 50%, as shown in Table 3.
Table 3: Viability Results for New Listings in the Past Decade – Indexed vs Active
Launch Period Considered | Indexed ETFs Launched | % Viable | Active ETFs Launched | % Viable | Total ETFs Launched | % Viable |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jul 1, 2014 - Jun 30, 2019 | 1047 | 39% | 277 | 50% | 1324 | 41% |
Jul 1, 2014 - Jun 30, 2024 | 2085 | 36% | 1341 | 39% | 3426 | 37% |
It is too early to know if this higher success rate for active ETFs is sustainable. As the number of active ETF launches increases, it seems reasonable to assume that the success rate for new active launches could get closer to the success rate of indexed ETFs.
Launch Outcomes by ETF Asset Class
Bond ETF launches have been more successful over the measurement decade, with 50% reaching the viability threshold vs 36% for equity focused ETFs. Success rates for commodity and alternative ETFs are much lower, likely compounded by the fact that many of them were launched as ETNs, a legal structure that has struggled to sustain interest.
Table 4: Indexed vs Active Viability
Correction: "hiking" replaced "cutting" in 7th paragraph.