ECML vs. RFV

Last updated Jun 21, 2026

ECML (EA Series Trust - Euclidean Fundamental Value ETF) and RFV (Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Value ETF) are both Small Cap Value Equities funds. ECML is actively managed, while RFV is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, ECML returned 13.99%/yr vs 14.25%/yr for RFV. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. ECML charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for RFV.

Performance

ECML vs. RFV - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in EA Series Trust - Euclidean Fundamental Value ETF (ECML) and Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Value ETF (RFV). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ECML achieves a 14.44% return, which is significantly higher than RFV's 12.27% return.

ECML

• 1D: 0.28%
• 1M: 1.48%
• YTD: 14.44%
• 6M: 13.39%
• 1Y: 27.88%
• 3Y*: 13.99%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RFV

• 1D: 0.34%
• 1M: 3.96%
• YTD: 12.27%
• 6M: 10.35%
• 1Y: 22.11%
• 3Y*: 14.25%
• 5Y*: 11.75%
• 10Y*: 12.30%

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

ECML vs. RFV - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
ECML EA Series Trust - Euclidean Fundamental Value ETF	14.44%	6.82%	2.37%	26.00%
RFV Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Value ETF	12.27%	7.66%	5.63%	24.94%

Correlation

The correlation between ECML and RFV is 0.82, 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	0.82
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.87
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 18, 2023	0.87

The correlation between ECML and RFV has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.

ECML vs. RFV - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ECML	RFV
Consumer Cyclical	23.1%	25.5%
Healthcare	17.6%	0.6%
Industrials	14.8%	11.7%
Consumer Defensive	12.3%	7.4%
Energy	12.2%	12.1%
Basic Materials	11.7%	7.6%
Technology	4.5%	14.2%
Communication Services	3.8%	-
Utilities	1.4%	-
Financial Services	-	17.4%
Real Estate	-	3.5%

Return for Risk

ECML vs. RFV — Risk / Return Rank

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

ECML

ECML Risk / Return Rank: 65
ECML Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
ECML Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
ECML Omega Ratio Rank: 55
ECML Calmar Ratio Rank: 81
ECML Martin Ratio Rank: 65

RFV

RFV Risk / Return Rank: 36
RFV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 36
RFV Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
RFV Omega Ratio Rank: 34
RFV Calmar Ratio Rank: 37
RFV Martin Ratio Rank: 36

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.

ECML vs. RFV - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for EA Series Trust - Euclidean Fundamental Value ETF (ECML) and Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Value ETF (RFV). 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.

	ECML	RFV	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.91	1.24	+0.67
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.90	1.92	+0.98
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.22	+0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.02	1.79	+2.23
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.51	5.27	+6.23

ECML vs. RFV - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ECML Sharpe Ratio is 1.91, which is higher than the RFV Sharpe Ratio of 1.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ECML and RFV, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

ECML vs. RFV - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ECML drawdown since its inception was -24.66%, smaller than the maximum RFV drawdown of -71.82%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ECML and RFV.

Drawdown Indicators

	ECML	RFV	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.66%	-71.82%	+47.16%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.01%	-12.51%	+5.50%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.66%	-24.65%	-0.01%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-24.65%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-52.24%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.41%	-2.75%	+0.34%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.80%	-9.77%	+3.97%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.44%	4.24%	-1.80%

Volatility

ECML vs. RFV - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for EA Series Trust - Euclidean Fundamental Value ETF (ECML) is 4.16%, while Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Value ETF (RFV) has a volatility of 4.60%. This indicates that ECML experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RFV based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ECML	RFV	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.16%	4.60%	-0.44%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.68%	11.90%	-2.22%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.76%	18.02%	-3.26%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.35%	22.01%	-3.66%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.35%	24.99%	-6.64%

ECML vs. RFV - Expense Ratio Comparison

ECML has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than RFV's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

ECML vs. RFV - Dividend Comparison

ECML's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.20%, less than RFV's 1.85% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ECML EA Series Trust - Euclidean Fundamental Value ETF	1.20%	1.38%	0.98%	0.77%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RFV Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Value ETF	1.85%	2.07%	1.31%	1.27%	2.05%	1.60%	1.52%	1.71%	1.39%	1.36%	0.88%	1.79%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ECML and RFV in my portfolio?

ECML and RFV have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, ECML or RFV?

RFV has higher volatility (4.60%) compared to ECML (4.16%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ECML dropped -24.66% vs RFV's -71.82%.

Which ETF is better, ECML or RFV?

On 3-year performance, RFV leads with 14.25% vs 13.99% for ECML. On fees, RFV is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, ECML has been the lower-risk option at 4.16%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ECML or RFV?

Over the 3-year period, RFV has performed better with a 14.25% return vs 13.99%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ECML or RFV?

RFV is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for ECML.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, ECML or RFV?

RFV has the higher dividend yield at 1.85%, compared with 1.20% for ECML.

What is the main difference between ECML and RFV?

They also come from different issuers: Euclidean and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for ECML and 0.35% for RFV.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ECML currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.91 vs 1.24), 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.