EMOT vs. RSPG

Last updated Jun 28, 2026

EMOT (First Trust S&P 500 Economic Moat ETF) and RSPG (Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Energy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EMOT is a S&P 500 fund tracking the S&P 500 Economic Moat Index, while RSPG is a Energy Equities fund tracking the S&P 500 Equal Weight Energy Plus Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, EMOT returned 16.66% vs 34.93% for RSPG. At a 0.20 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EMOT charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for RSPG.

Performance

EMOT vs. RSPG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust S&P 500 Economic Moat ETF (EMOT) and Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Energy ETF (RSPG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EMOT achieves a 10.84% return, which is significantly lower than RSPG's 25.13% return.

EMOT

• 1D: 0.51%
• 1M: 0.98%
• YTD: 10.84%
• 6M: 9.56%
• 1Y: 16.66%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RSPG

• 1D: -0.43%
• 1M: -4.30%
• YTD: 25.13%
• 6M: 26.53%
• 1Y: 34.93%
• 3Y*: 16.96%
• 5Y*: 19.64%
• 10Y*: 8.93%

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

EMOT vs. RSPG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
EMOT First Trust S&P 500 Economic Moat ETF	10.84%	14.17%	5.53%
RSPG Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Energy ETF	25.13%	7.01%	-3.43%

Correlation

The correlation between EMOT and RSPG is 0.04, meaning there is essentially no relationship between their price movements. Each responds to its own set of market drivers, making them strong candidates for combining in a diversified portfolio.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.04
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 27, 2024	0.20

The correlation between EMOT and RSPG shifts across timeframes, from 0.04 (1 year) to 0.20 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

EMOT vs. RSPG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EMOT	RSPG
Technology	41.6%	-
Consumer Cyclical	18.0%	-
Consumer Defensive	15.9%	-
Healthcare	9.4%	-
Financial Services	5.1%	0.0%
Communication Services	3.9%	-
Industrials	3.6%	-
Energy	2.4%	100.0%
Basic Materials	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

EMOT vs. RSPG — Risk / Return Rank

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

EMOT

EMOT Risk / Return Rank: 48
EMOT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 50
EMOT Sortino Ratio Rank: 50
EMOT Omega Ratio Rank: 48
EMOT Calmar Ratio Rank: 43
EMOT Martin Ratio Rank: 50

RSPG

RSPG Risk / Return Rank: 49
RSPG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 52
RSPG Sortino Ratio Rank: 46
RSPG Omega Ratio Rank: 43
RSPG Calmar Ratio Rank: 58
RSPG Martin Ratio Rank: 47

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.

EMOT vs. RSPG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust S&P 500 Economic Moat ETF (EMOT) and Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Energy ETF (RSPG). 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.

	EMOT	RSPG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.52	1.57	-0.05
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.17	2.09	+0.07
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	1.26	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.92	2.50	-0.58
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.49	7.11	+0.37

EMOT vs. RSPG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EMOT Sharpe Ratio is 1.52, which is comparable to the RSPG Sharpe Ratio of 1.57. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EMOT and RSPG, 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

EMOT vs. RSPG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EMOT drawdown since its inception was -16.41%, smaller than the maximum RSPG drawdown of -79.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EMOT and RSPG.

Drawdown Indicators

	EMOT	RSPG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-16.41%	-79.98%	+63.57%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.19%	-13.72%	+4.53%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-23.06%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-28.44%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-73.17%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.18%	-12.09%	+10.91%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.05%	-25.41%	+23.36%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.35%	4.82%	-2.47%

Volatility

EMOT vs. RSPG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for First Trust S&P 500 Economic Moat ETF (EMOT) is 3.87%, while Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Energy ETF (RSPG) has a volatility of 6.94%. This indicates that EMOT experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RSPG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EMOT	RSPG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.87%	6.94%	-3.07%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.99%	16.95%	-7.96%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	11.62%	21.93%	-10.31%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.90%	28.24%	-13.34%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.90%	33.50%	-18.60%

EMOT vs. RSPG - Expense Ratio Comparison

EMOT has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than RSPG's 0.40% expense ratio.

Dividends

EMOT vs. RSPG - Dividend Comparison

EMOT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.09%, less than RSPG's 2.12% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EMOT First Trust S&P 500 Economic Moat ETF	1.09%	0.84%	0.37%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RSPG Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Energy ETF	2.12%	2.60%	2.43%	2.84%	3.43%	2.37%	3.15%	2.15%	2.18%	2.55%	1.14%	2.80%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EMOT and RSPG in my portfolio?

EMOT and RSPG have a correlation of 0.04, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EMOT or RSPG?

RSPG has higher volatility (6.94%) compared to EMOT (3.87%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EMOT dropped -16.41% vs RSPG's -79.98%.

Which ETF is better, EMOT or RSPG?

On 1-year performance, RSPG leads with 34.93% vs 16.66% for EMOT. On fees, RSPG is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, EMOT has been the lower-risk option at 3.87%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EMOT or RSPG?

Over the 1-year period, RSPG has performed better with a 34.93% return vs 16.66%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EMOT or RSPG?

RSPG is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for EMOT.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EMOT or RSPG?

RSPG has the higher dividend yield at 2.12%, compared with 1.09% for EMOT.

What is the main difference between EMOT and RSPG?

EMOT is categorized as S&P 500, while RSPG is Energy Equities. EMOT tracks S&P 500 Economic Moat Index, while RSPG tracks S&P 500 Equal Weight Energy Plus Index. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for EMOT and 0.40% for RSPG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RSPG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.57 vs 1.52), 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.