ECML vs. RWJ

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

ECML (EA Series Trust - Euclidean Fundamental Value ETF) and RWJ (Invesco S&P SmallCap 600 Revenue ETF) are both Small Cap Value Equities funds. ECML is actively managed, while RWJ is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, ECML returned 14.43%/yr vs 18.22%/yr for RWJ. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. ECML charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for RWJ.

Performance

ECML vs. RWJ - 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 SmallCap 600 Revenue ETF (RWJ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ECML achieves a 14.84% return, which is significantly lower than RWJ's 19.22% return.

ECML

• 1D: 0.35%
• 1M: 1.19%
• YTD: 14.84%
• 6M: 13.24%
• 1Y: 28.34%
• 3Y*: 14.43%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RWJ

• 1D: -0.70%
• 1M: 4.86%
• YTD: 19.22%
• 6M: 17.01%
• 1Y: 39.78%
• 3Y*: 18.22%
• 5Y*: 8.90%
• 10Y*: 13.65%

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

ECML vs. RWJ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
ECML EA Series Trust - Euclidean Fundamental Value ETF	14.84%	6.82%	2.37%	26.00%
RWJ Invesco S&P SmallCap 600 Revenue ETF	19.22%	7.75%	11.81%	15.77%

Correlation

The correlation between ECML and RWJ is 0.85, 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	0.85
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 RWJ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.

ECML vs. RWJ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ECML	RWJ
Consumer Cyclical	23.1%	23.9%
Healthcare	17.6%	11.0%
Industrials	14.8%	16.0%
Consumer Defensive	12.3%	6.8%
Energy	12.2%	7.2%
Basic Materials	11.7%	5.0%
Technology	4.5%	11.2%
Communication Services	3.8%	3.5%
Utilities	1.4%	0.8%
Financial Services	-	10.7%
Real Estate	-	3.9%

Return for Risk

ECML vs. RWJ — 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: 60
ECML Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
ECML Omega Ratio Rank: 55
ECML Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
ECML Martin Ratio Rank: 66

RWJ

RWJ Risk / Return Rank: 66
RWJ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 65
RWJ Sortino Ratio Rank: 67
RWJ Omega Ratio Rank: 59
RWJ Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
RWJ Martin Ratio Rank: 64

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. RWJ - 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 SmallCap 600 Revenue ETF (RWJ). 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	RWJ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.93	2.06	-0.13
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.93	2.96	-0.03
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.33	1.35	-0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	4.06	3.53	+0.53
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.61	11.35	+0.26

ECML vs. RWJ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ECML Sharpe Ratio is 1.93, which is comparable to the RWJ Sharpe Ratio of 2.06. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ECML and RWJ, 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. RWJ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ECML drawdown since its inception was -24.66%, smaller than the maximum RWJ drawdown of -55.97%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ECML and RWJ.

Drawdown Indicators

	ECML	RWJ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-24.66%	-55.97%	+31.31%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.01%	-11.31%	+4.30%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.66%	-29.29%	+4.63%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-29.29%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-51.33%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.06%	-1.51%	-0.55%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.80%	-9.21%	+3.41%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.45%	3.52%	-1.07%

Volatility

ECML vs. RWJ - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for EA Series Trust - Euclidean Fundamental Value ETF (ECML) is 4.01%, while Invesco S&P SmallCap 600 Revenue ETF (RWJ) has a volatility of 4.66%. This indicates that ECML experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RWJ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ECML	RWJ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.01%	4.66%	-0.65%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	9.68%	12.61%	-2.93%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	14.79%	19.43%	-4.64%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.34%	23.66%	-5.32%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.34%	26.16%	-7.82%

ECML vs. RWJ - Expense Ratio Comparison

ECML has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than RWJ's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

ECML vs. RWJ - Dividend Comparison

ECML's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.20%, less than RWJ's 1.25% 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%
RWJ Invesco S&P SmallCap 600 Revenue ETF	1.25%	1.11%	1.15%	1.34%	1.02%	0.61%	0.89%	1.22%	1.44%	1.11%	0.60%	0.74%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ECML and RWJ in my portfolio?

ECML and RWJ have a correlation of 0.85, 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 RWJ?

RWJ has higher volatility (4.66%) compared to ECML (4.01%). In terms of maximum drawdown, ECML dropped -24.66% vs RWJ's -55.97%.

Which ETF is better, ECML or RWJ?

On 3-year performance, RWJ leads with 18.22% vs 14.43% for ECML. On fees, RWJ is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, ECML has been the lower-risk option at 4.01%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, ECML or RWJ?

Over the 3-year period, RWJ has performed better with a 18.22% return vs 14.43%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, ECML or RWJ?

RWJ is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for ECML.

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

RWJ has the higher dividend yield at 1.25%, compared with 1.20% for ECML.

What is the main difference between ECML and RWJ?

They also come from different issuers: Euclidean and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for ECML and 0.39% for RWJ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RWJ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.06 vs 1.93), 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.