PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
ACSG vs. RFG
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

ACSG vs. RFG

Last updated Jun 26, 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.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both investments are quite close, with ACSG having a 20.88% return and RFG slightly higher at 21.30%.

ACSG

1D
0.91%
1M
4.36%
YTD
20.88%
6M
17.41%
1Y
—
3Y*
—
5Y*
—
10Y*
—

RFG

1D
0.86%
1M
0.78%
YTD
21.30%
6M
18.59%
1Y
33.66%
3Y*
19.54%
5Y*
7.54%
10Y*
11.33%
*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		20.88%-0.86%
RFG
Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF		21.30%2.95%

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 16, 2025

0.91

ACSG vs. RFG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors
ACSG
RFG

Technology

26.1%
22.8%

Industrials

22.4%
33.1%

Healthcare

21.2%
19.0%

Consumer Cyclical

8.2%
4.0%

Financial Services

7.6%
3.7%

Basic Materials

3.8%
2.9%

Energy

2.8%
4.9%

Consumer Defensive

2.4%
4.8%

Utilities

2.0%
2.6%

Communication Services

1.9%
0.5%

Real Estate

1.8%
1.8%

Technology

ACSG
26.1%
RFG
22.8%

Industrials

ACSG
22.4%
RFG
33.1%

Healthcare

ACSG
21.2%
RFG
19.0%

Consumer Cyclical

ACSG
8.2%
RFG
4.0%

Financial Services

ACSG
7.6%
RFG
3.7%

Basic Materials

ACSG
3.8%
RFG
2.9%

Energy

ACSG
2.8%
RFG
4.9%

Consumer Defensive

ACSG
2.4%
RFG
4.8%

Utilities

ACSG
2.0%
RFG
2.6%

Communication Services

ACSG
1.9%
RFG
0.5%

Real Estate

ACSG
1.8%
RFG
1.8%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

American Century Small Cap Growth Insights ETF

Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF

Often compared with ACSG:
ACSG vs. BKSEACSG vs. AVLCACSG vs. AVUSACSG vs. XSMOACSG vs. FDGACSG vs. VBKACSG vs. MDY
Often compared with RFG:
RFG vs. RFVRFG vs. IVOGRFG vs. SPMDRFG vs. FRTYRFG vs. FDISRFG vs. VOTRFG vs. IMCG

Return for Risk

ACSG vs. RFG — Risk / Return Rank

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

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

RFG
RFG Risk / Return Rank: 6565
Overall Rank
RFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6060
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 6060
Sortino Ratio Rank
RFG Omega Ratio Rank: 5555
Omega Ratio Rank
RFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 7373
Calmar Ratio Rank
RFG Martin Ratio Rank: 7878
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

ACSGRFGDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

—

1.76

—

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

—

2.48

—

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

—

1.30

—

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

—

3.25

—

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

—

13.06

—

ACSG vs. RFG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

Loading charts...

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.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

ACSGRFGDifference

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

-0.33%

-1.55%

+1.22%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-2.90%

-8.95%

+6.05%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

—

2.58%

—

Volatility

ACSG vs. RFG - Volatility Comparison

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

ACSGRFGDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

—

6.30%

—

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

—

15.57%

—

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

22.85%

19.25%

+3.60%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

22.85%

22.92%

-0.07%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

22.85%

23.07%

-0.22%

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 0.14%.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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		0.14%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

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.

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.

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

RFG has the higher dividend yield at 0.14%, compared with 0.00% for ACSG.

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

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for ACSG and RFG

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer