ACSG vs. RFG

Last updated Jun 6, 2026

ACSG (American Century Small Cap Growth Insights ETF) and RFG (Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF) are both Small Cap Growth Equities funds. ACSG is actively managed, while RFG is passively managed. Their correlation of 0.91 suggests significant overlap in exposure. ACSG charges 0.49%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for RFG.

Performance

ACSG vs. RFG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in American Century Small Cap Growth Insights ETF (ACSG) and Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF (RFG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ACSG achieves a 11.29% return, which is significantly lower than RFG's 18.39% return.

ACSG

• 1D: -3.92%
• 1M: -2.71%
• YTD: 11.29%
• 6M: 9.65%
• 1Y: —
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RFG

• 1D: -3.41%
• 1M: -1.55%
• YTD: 18.39%
• 6M: 17.67%
• 1Y: 29.11%
• 3Y*: 18.88%
• 5Y*: 7.95%
• 10Y*: 10.07%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ACSG vs. RFG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
ACSG American Century Small Cap Growth Insights ETF	11.29%	1.17%
RFG Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF	18.39%	4.42%

Correlation

The correlation between ACSG and RFG is 0.91, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 17, 2025	0.91

ACSG vs. RFG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ACSG	RFG
Industrials	23.4%	31.3%
Healthcare	22.7%	19.4%
Technology	22.0%	21.2%
Consumer Cyclical	9.1%	7.6%
Financial Services	7.6%	3.7%
Basic Materials	3.9%	3.3%
Energy	3.1%	5.4%
Communication Services	2.2%	0.6%
Real Estate	2.2%	2.2%
Consumer Defensive	2.0%	3.1%
Utilities	1.7%	2.4%

Return for Risk

ACSG vs. RFG — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

RFG

RFG Risk / Return Rank: 53
RFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 47
RFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 48
RFG Omega Ratio Rank: 44
RFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 59
RFG Martin Ratio Rank: 65

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

ACSG vs. RFG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for American Century Small Cap Growth Insights ETF (ACSG) and Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF (RFG). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	ACSG	RFG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	—	1.55	—
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.35	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.44	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.92	0.42	+0.50

Drawdowns

ACSG vs. RFG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ACSG drawdown since its inception was -13.28%, smaller than the maximum RFG drawdown of -51.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ACSG and RFG.

Drawdown Indicators

	ACSG	RFG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-13.28%	-51.93%	+38.65%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	—	-10.41%	—
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-26.71%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-35.16%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-42.92%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-4.12%	-3.41%	-0.71%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.01%	-8.96%	+5.95%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	—	2.57%	—

Volatility

Volatility by Period

	ACSG	RFG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	—	6.43%	—
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	—	15.14%	—
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.55%	18.83%	+3.72%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.55%	22.85%	-0.30%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.55%	23.07%	-0.52%

ACSG vs. RFG - Expense Ratio Comparison

ACSG has a 0.49% expense ratio, which is higher than RFG's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

ACSG vs. RFG - Dividend Comparison

ACSG has not paid dividends to shareholders, while RFG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.32%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ACSG American Century Small Cap Growth Insights ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RFG Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF	0.32%	0.43%	0.38%	0.99%	0.78%	0.05%	0.27%	0.64%	0.76%	0.66%	0.35%	0.61%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ACSG and RFG in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.91, ACSG and RFG move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which ETF is better, ACSG or RFG?

On fees, RFG is cheaper at 0.35% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, ACSG or RFG?

RFG is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.49% for ACSG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ACSG or RFG?

RFG has the higher dividend yield at 0.32%, compared with 0.00% for ACSG.

What is the main difference between ACSG and RFG?

They also come from different issuers: American Century and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.49% for ACSG and 0.35% for RFG.