CZA vs. RNMC

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

CZA (Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF) and RNMC (First Trust Mid Cap US Equity Select ETF) are both Mid Cap Blend Equities funds - CZA tracks the Zacks Mid-Cap Core Index while RNMC tracks the Nasdaq Riskalyze Mid Cap US Equity Select Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, CZA returned 6.64%/yr vs 4.93%/yr for RNMC. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. CZA charges 0.69%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for RNMC.

Performance

CZA vs. RNMC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA) and First Trust Mid Cap US Equity Select ETF (RNMC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CZA achieves a 5.97% return, which is significantly higher than RNMC's -1.53% return.

CZA

• 1D: -0.24%
• 1M: 1.90%
• YTD: 5.97%
• 6M: 6.65%
• 1Y: 13.18%
• 3Y*: 12.55%
• 5Y*: 6.64%
• 10Y*: 10.10%

RNMC

• 1D: -0.01%
• 1M: -1.54%
• YTD: -1.53%
• 6M: -1.11%
• 1Y: -1.10%
• 3Y*: 9.79%
• 5Y*: 4.93%
• 10Y*: —

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

CZA vs. RNMC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
CZA Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF	5.97%	8.31%	12.14%	7.00%	-5.91%	27.42%	0.35%	32.27%	-8.89%	10.49%
RNMC First Trust Mid Cap US Equity Select ETF	-1.53%	1.77%	14.98%	16.81%	-9.11%	26.08%	5.71%	28.00%	-12.85%	10.74%

Correlation

The correlation between CZA and RNMC is 0.90, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.90
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.91
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.90
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 23, 2017	0.86

The correlation between CZA and RNMC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.86 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

CZA vs. RNMC - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	CZA	RNMC
Financial Services	23.8%	14.9%
Industrials	16.0%	20.0%
Healthcare	12.6%	11.5%
Utilities	10.6%	4.4%
Real Estate	10.5%	7.0%
Technology	10.5%	10.6%
Consumer Cyclical	6.2%	16.4%
Basic Materials	4.2%	5.0%
Consumer Defensive	2.9%	2.3%
Energy	0.8%	5.0%
Communication Services	-	3.0%

Return for Risk

CZA vs. RNMC — Risk / Return Rank

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

CZA

CZA Risk / Return Rank: 30
CZA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 29
CZA Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
CZA Omega Ratio Rank: 27
CZA Calmar Ratio Rank: 29
CZA Martin Ratio Rank: 36

RNMC

RNMC Risk / Return Rank: 7
RNMC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8
RNMC Sortino Ratio Rank: 7
RNMC Omega Ratio Rank: 7
RNMC Calmar Ratio Rank: 7
RNMC Martin Ratio Rank: 7

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.

CZA vs. RNMC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA) and First Trust Mid Cap US Equity Select ETF (RNMC). 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.

	CZA	RNMC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.04	-0.09	+1.12
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.59	-0.04	+1.62
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.18	1.00	+0.19
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.44	-0.14	+1.58
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.48	-0.31	+5.79
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

CZA vs. RNMC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CZA Sharpe Ratio is 1.04, which is higher than the RNMC Sharpe Ratio of -0.09. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CZA and RNMC, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	CZA	RNMC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.04	-0.09	+1.12
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.41	0.27	+0.14
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.53	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.48	0.39	+0.09

Drawdowns

CZA vs. RNMC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CZA drawdown since its inception was -53.20%, which is greater than RNMC's maximum drawdown of -43.57%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CZA and RNMC.

Drawdown Indicators

	CZA	RNMC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-53.20%	-43.57%	-9.63%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.21%	-7.81%	-1.40%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.92%	-19.55%	+0.63%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-18.92%	-21.25%	+2.33%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-46.18%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.78%	-7.32%	+6.54%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.88%	-5.99%	-0.89%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.41%	3.60%	-1.19%

Volatility

CZA vs. RNMC - Volatility Comparison

Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA) and First Trust Mid Cap US Equity Select ETF (RNMC) have volatilities of 3.13% and 3.07%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	CZA	RNMC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.13%	3.07%	+0.06%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.30%	8.22%	+1.08%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.78%	12.70%	+0.08%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	16.14%	18.09%	-1.95%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.28%	21.20%	-1.92%

CZA vs. RNMC - Expense Ratio Comparison

CZA has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is higher than RNMC's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

CZA vs. RNMC - Dividend Comparison

CZA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.47%, more than RNMC's 0.91% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CZA Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF	1.47%	1.56%	1.27%	1.36%	1.71%	0.89%	1.42%	1.40%	1.27%	1.10%	1.87%	1.37%
RNMC First Trust Mid Cap US Equity Select ETF	0.91%	0.75%	1.12%	1.47%	1.71%	1.21%	1.33%	1.68%	1.67%	0.67%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both CZA and RNMC in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.90, CZA and RNMC 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 is riskier, CZA or RNMC?

CZA has higher volatility (3.13%) compared to RNMC (3.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CZA dropped -53.20% vs RNMC's -43.57%.

Which ETF is better, CZA or RNMC?

On 5-year performance, CZA leads with 6.64% vs 4.93% for RNMC. On fees, RNMC is cheaper at 0.60% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, CZA or RNMC?

Over the 5-year period, CZA has performed better with a 6.64% return vs 4.93%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, CZA or RNMC?

RNMC is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for CZA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, CZA or RNMC?

CZA has the higher dividend yield at 1.47%, compared with 0.91% for RNMC.

What is the main difference between CZA and RNMC?

CZA tracks Zacks Mid-Cap Core Index, while RNMC tracks Nasdaq Riskalyze Mid Cap US Equity Select Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for CZA and 0.60% for RNMC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CZA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.04 vs -0.09), 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.