CWS vs. XMMO
CWS (AdvisorShares Focused Equity ETF) and XMMO (Invesco S&P MidCap Momentum ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - CWS is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by AdvisorShares, while XMMO is a Momentum fund tracking the S&P MidCap 400 Momentum Index. CWS is actively managed, while XMMO is passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CWS returned 8.12%/yr vs 15.91%/yr for XMMO. A 0.70 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. CWS charges 0.77%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for XMMO.
Performance
CWS vs. XMMO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, CWS achieves a -2.08% return, which is significantly lower than XMMO's 22.90% return.
CWS
- 1D
- -0.50%
- 1M
- 0.14%
- YTD
- -2.08%
- 6M
- -3.85%
- 1Y
- -1.44%
- 3Y*
- 9.20%
- 5Y*
- 8.12%
- 10Y*
- —
XMMO
- 1D
- -2.42%
- 1M
- 3.07%
- YTD
- 22.90%
- 6M
- 20.25%
- 1Y
- 35.75%
- 3Y*
- 31.04%
- 5Y*
- 15.91%
- 10Y*
- 20.13%
CWS vs. XMMO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CWS AdvisorShares Focused Equity ETF | -2.08% | 6.43% | 9.82% | 25.06% | -10.42% | 22.20% | 17.12% | 30.97% | -6.46% | 20.92% |
XMMO Invesco S&P MidCap Momentum ETF | 22.90% | 13.04% | 38.03% | 20.39% | -16.02% | 16.69% | 29.17% | 36.78% | 6.12% | 37.18% |
Correlation
The correlation between CWS and XMMO is 0.66, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 0.66 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.75 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.75 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 21, 2016 | 0.70 |
The correlation between CWS and XMMO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.66 to 0.75 - a consistent structural relationship.
CWS vs. XMMO - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
CWS
XMMO
Healthcare
Industrials
Technology
Consumer Cyclical
Financial Services
Consumer Defensive
Utilities
Basic Materials
-
Communication Services
-
Energy
-
Real Estate
-
Healthcare
CWS
XMMO
Industrials
CWS
XMMO
Technology
CWS
XMMO
Consumer Cyclical
CWS
XMMO
Financial Services
CWS
XMMO
Consumer Defensive
CWS
XMMO
Utilities
CWS
XMMO
Basic Materials
CWS
-
XMMO
Communication Services
CWS
-
XMMO
Energy
CWS
-
XMMO
Real Estate
CWS
-
XMMO
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
CWS vs. XMMO — Risk / Return Rank
CWS
XMMO
CWS vs. XMMO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for AdvisorShares Focused Equity ETF (CWS) and Invesco S&P MidCap Momentum ETF (XMMO). 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.
| CWS | XMMO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -1.91 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -2.55 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 0.99 | 1.32 | -0.33 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | -0.12 | 4.31 | -4.43 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | -0.30 | 17.07 | -17.37 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
CWS vs. XMMO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum CWS drawdown since its inception was -33.82%, smaller than the maximum XMMO drawdown of -55.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CWS and XMMO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| CWS | XMMO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -33.82% | -55.37% | +21.55% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -11.92% | -8.34% | -3.58% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -16.56% | -24.93% | +8.37% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -24.87% | -27.91% | +3.04% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -36.74% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -6.49% | -2.42% | -4.07% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -4.55% | -9.43% | +4.88% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 4.77% | 2.10% | +2.67% |
Volatility
CWS vs. XMMO - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for AdvisorShares Focused Equity ETF (CWS) is 3.70%, while Invesco S&P MidCap Momentum ETF (XMMO) has a volatility of 8.50%. This indicates that CWS experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XMMO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| CWS | XMMO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.70% | 8.50% | -4.80% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 10.41% | 16.79% | -6.38% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 13.48% | 19.94% | -6.46% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 15.68% | 21.65% | -5.97% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 16.89% | 22.33% | -5.44% |
CWS vs. XMMO - Expense Ratio Comparison
CWS has a 0.77% expense ratio, which is higher than XMMO's 0.35% expense ratio.
Dividends
CWS vs. XMMO - Dividend Comparison
CWS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.31%, less than XMMO's 0.57% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CWS AdvisorShares Focused Equity ETF | 0.31% | 0.31% | 0.59% | 0.25% | 0.50% | 0.16% | 0.27% | 0.39% | 2.07% | 0.29% | 0.03% | 0.00% |
XMMO Invesco S&P MidCap Momentum ETF | 0.57% | 0.78% | 0.34% | 0.80% | 1.43% | 0.41% | 0.61% | 0.60% | 0.19% | 0.21% | 0.22% | 0.64% |
Frequently Asked Questions
CWS and XMMO have a correlation of 0.66, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
XMMO has higher volatility (8.50%) compared to CWS (3.70%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CWS dropped -33.82% vs XMMO's -55.37%.
On 5-year performance, XMMO leads with 15.91% vs 8.12% for CWS. On fees, XMMO is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, CWS has been the lower-risk option at 3.70%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 5-year period, XMMO has performed better with a 15.91% return vs 8.12%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
XMMO is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.77% for CWS.
XMMO has the higher dividend yield at 0.57%, compared with 0.31% for CWS.
CWS is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while XMMO is Momentum. They also come from different issuers: AdvisorShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.77% for CWS and 0.35% for XMMO.
XMMO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.80 vs -0.11), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.
Find the right allocation for CWS and XMMO
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