PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
CZA vs. SPHQ
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

CZA vs. SPHQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA) and Invesco S&P 500 Quality ETF (SPHQ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, CZA achieves a 5.97% return, which is significantly lower than SPHQ's 15.48% return. Over the past 10 years, CZA has underperformed SPHQ with an annualized return of 10.10%, while SPHQ has yielded a comparatively higher 15.01% annualized 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%

SPHQ

1D
0.28%
1M
7.17%
YTD
15.48%
6M
16.06%
1Y
23.22%
3Y*
22.41%
5Y*
14.54%
10Y*
15.01%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

CZA vs. SPHQ - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
CZA
Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF
5.97%8.31%12.14%7.00%-5.91%27.42%0.35%32.27%-8.89%21.90%
SPHQ
Invesco S&P 500 Quality ETF
15.48%13.25%25.44%24.83%-15.76%28.03%17.36%33.64%-7.10%19.10%

Correlation

The correlation between CZA and SPHQ is 0.79, 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

0.79

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.73

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.81

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.80

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 4, 2007

0.74

The correlation between CZA and SPHQ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.73 to 0.81 - a consistent structural relationship.

CZA vs. SPHQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
CZA
SPHQ

Financial Services

23.8%
13.3%

Industrials

16.0%
24.3%

Healthcare

12.6%
8.4%

Utilities

10.6%
1.0%

Real Estate

10.5%

-

Technology

10.5%
28.1%

Consumer Cyclical

6.2%
4.6%

Basic Materials

4.2%
2.2%

Consumer Defensive

2.9%
15.4%

Energy

0.8%
0.7%

Communication Services

-

2.0%

Financial Services

CZA
23.8%
SPHQ
13.3%

Industrials

CZA
16.0%
SPHQ
24.3%

Healthcare

CZA
12.6%
SPHQ
8.4%

Utilities

CZA
10.6%
SPHQ
1.0%

Real Estate

CZA
10.5%
SPHQ

-

Technology

CZA
10.5%
SPHQ
28.1%

Consumer Cyclical

CZA
6.2%
SPHQ
4.6%

Basic Materials

CZA
4.2%
SPHQ
2.2%

Consumer Defensive

CZA
2.9%
SPHQ
15.4%

Energy

CZA
0.8%
SPHQ
0.7%

Communication Services

CZA

-

SPHQ
2.0%

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

CZA vs. SPHQ — Risk / Return Rank

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

CZA
CZA Risk / Return Rank: 3030
Overall Rank
CZA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2929
Sharpe Ratio Rank
CZA Sortino Ratio Rank: 2929
Sortino Ratio Rank
CZA Omega Ratio Rank: 2727
Omega Ratio Rank
CZA Calmar Ratio Rank: 2929
Calmar Ratio Rank
CZA Martin Ratio Rank: 3636
Martin Ratio Rank

SPHQ
SPHQ Risk / Return Rank: 5454
Overall Rank
SPHQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5353
Sharpe Ratio Rank
SPHQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 5555
Sortino Ratio Rank
SPHQ Omega Ratio Rank: 4949
Omega Ratio Rank
SPHQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 5252
Calmar Ratio Rank
SPHQ Martin Ratio Rank: 6161
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.

CZA vs. SPHQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA) and Invesco S&P 500 Quality ETF (SPHQ). 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.


CZASPHQDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.81

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.10

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.18

1.32

-0.13

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.44

2.62

-1.19

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

5.48

11.17

-5.68

CZA vs. SPHQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current CZA Sharpe Ratio is 1.04, which is lower than the SPHQ Sharpe Ratio of 1.85. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of CZA and SPHQ, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


CZASPHQDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.04

1.85

-0.81

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.41

0.89

-0.48

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.53

0.84

-0.32

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.48

0.53

-0.06

Drawdowns

CZA vs. SPHQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum CZA drawdown since its inception was -53.20%, smaller than the maximum SPHQ drawdown of -57.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for CZA and SPHQ.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


CZASPHQDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-53.20%

-57.83%

+4.63%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-9.21%

-8.90%

-0.31%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-18.92%

-16.57%

-2.35%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-18.92%

-25.04%

+6.12%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-46.18%

-31.60%

-14.58%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.78%

0.00%

-0.78%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-6.88%

-10.70%

+3.82%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.41%

2.08%

+0.33%

Volatility

CZA vs. SPHQ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA) is 3.13%, while Invesco S&P 500 Quality ETF (SPHQ) has a volatility of 3.49%. This indicates that CZA experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than SPHQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


CZASPHQDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.13%

3.49%

-0.36%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.30%

10.18%

-0.88%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

12.78%

12.62%

+0.16%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

16.14%

16.45%

-0.31%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

19.28%

17.86%

+1.42%

CZA vs. SPHQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

CZA has a 0.69% expense ratio, which is higher than SPHQ's 0.15% expense ratio.


Dividends

CZA vs. SPHQ - Dividend Comparison

CZA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.47%, more than SPHQ's 1.04% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
SPHQ
Invesco S&P 500 Quality ETF
1.04%1.09%1.15%1.42%1.85%1.19%1.55%1.51%1.85%1.57%1.67%2.29%

Frequently Asked Questions


CZA and SPHQ have a correlation of 0.79, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

SPHQ has higher volatility (3.49%) compared to CZA (3.13%). In terms of maximum drawdown, CZA dropped -53.20% vs SPHQ's -57.83%.

On 10-year performance, SPHQ leads with 15.01% vs 10.10% for CZA. On fees, SPHQ is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, CZA has been the lower-risk option at 3.13%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, SPHQ has performed better with a 15.01% return vs 10.10%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

SPHQ is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for CZA.

CZA has the higher dividend yield at 1.47%, compared with 1.04% for SPHQ.

CZA is categorized as Mid Cap Blend Equities, while SPHQ is S&P 500. CZA tracks Zacks Mid-Cap Core Index, while SPHQ tracks S&P 500 Quality Index. Their fees differ too: 0.69% for CZA and 0.15% for SPHQ.

SPHQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.85 vs 1.04), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for CZA and SPHQ

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