EQWL vs. BLCR

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

EQWL (Invesco S&P 100 Equal Weight ETF) and BLCR (Blackrock Large Cap Core ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. EQWL is passively managed, while BLCR is actively managed. Over the past year, EQWL returned 21.89% vs 47.09% for BLCR. A 0.72 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EQWL charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.36%/yr for BLCR.

Performance

EQWL vs. BLCR - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P 100 Equal Weight ETF (EQWL) and Blackrock Large Cap Core ETF (BLCR). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EQWL achieves a 8.74% return, which is significantly lower than BLCR's 19.56% return.

EQWL

• 1D: -0.50%
• 1M: 4.84%
• YTD: 8.74%
• 6M: 9.31%
• 1Y: 21.89%
• 3Y*: 19.67%
• 5Y*: 11.79%
• 10Y*: 14.47%

BLCR

• 1D: -0.33%
• 1M: 6.16%
• YTD: 19.56%
• 6M: 21.53%
• 1Y: 47.09%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

EQWL vs. BLCR - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
EQWL Invesco S&P 100 Equal Weight ETF	8.74%	17.61%	19.11%	16.02%
BLCR Blackrock Large Cap Core ETF	19.56%	30.93%	17.07%	14.18%

Correlation

The correlation between EQWL and BLCR is 0.68, 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	0.68
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 27, 2023	0.72

The correlation between EQWL and BLCR has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.68 to 0.72 - a consistent structural relationship.

EQWL vs. BLCR - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	EQWL	BLCR
Technology	22.8%	35.7%
Financial Services	15.6%	12.1%
Healthcare	14.0%	7.6%
Industrials	13.7%	13.5%
Consumer Defensive	8.9%	-
Consumer Cyclical	8.5%	10.9%
Communication Services	7.6%	11.0%
Energy	3.0%	2.2%
Utilities	3.0%	1.6%
Real Estate	2.0%	-
Basic Materials	1.0%	2.2%

Return for Risk

EQWL vs. BLCR — Risk / Return Rank

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

EQWL

EQWL Risk / Return Rank: 61
EQWL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 62
EQWL Sortino Ratio Rank: 63
EQWL Omega Ratio Rank: 60
EQWL Calmar Ratio Rank: 56
EQWL Martin Ratio Rank: 64

BLCR

BLCR Risk / Return Rank: 87
BLCR Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
BLCR Sortino Ratio Rank: 87
BLCR Omega Ratio Rank: 85
BLCR Calmar Ratio Rank: 84
BLCR Martin Ratio Rank: 91

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.

EQWL vs. BLCR - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P 100 Equal Weight ETF (EQWL) and Blackrock Large Cap Core ETF (BLCR). 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.

	EQWL	BLCR	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.12	3.05	-0.92
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.99	4.02	-1.03
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.52	-0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.83	4.61	-1.78
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.94	21.86	-9.93
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

EQWL vs. BLCR - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EQWL Sharpe Ratio is 2.12, which is lower than the BLCR Sharpe Ratio of 3.05. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EQWL and BLCR, 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

	EQWL	BLCR	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.12	3.05	-0.92
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.79	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.86	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.59	1.90	-1.30

Drawdowns

EQWL vs. BLCR - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EQWL drawdown since its inception was -49.36%, which is greater than BLCR's maximum drawdown of -21.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EQWL and BLCR.

Drawdown Indicators

	EQWL	BLCR	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-49.36%	-21.29%	-28.07%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.76%	-10.26%	+2.50%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.95%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-22.99%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-34.30%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.53%	-0.37%	-0.16%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.70%	-2.19%	-4.51%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.84%	2.16%	-0.32%

Volatility

EQWL vs. BLCR - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P 100 Equal Weight ETF (EQWL) is 2.66%, while Blackrock Large Cap Core ETF (BLCR) has a volatility of 4.45%. This indicates that EQWL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than BLCR based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EQWL	BLCR	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.66%	4.45%	-1.79%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.66%	12.24%	-4.58%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.37%	15.54%	-5.17%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.98%	17.47%	-2.49%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.79%	17.47%	-0.68%

EQWL vs. BLCR - Expense Ratio Comparison

EQWL has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than BLCR's 0.36% expense ratio.

Dividends

EQWL vs. BLCR - Dividend Comparison

EQWL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.54%, more than BLCR's 0.23% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BLCR Blackrock Large Cap Core ETF	0.23%	0.33%	0.75%	0.13%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
EQWL Invesco S&P 100 Equal Weight ETF	1.54%	1.67%	1.86%	1.97%	2.12%	1.65%	2.01%	2.04%	2.23%	1.27%	2.01%	2.03%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EQWL and BLCR in my portfolio?

EQWL and BLCR have a correlation of 0.68, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, EQWL or BLCR?

BLCR has higher volatility (4.45%) compared to EQWL (2.66%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EQWL dropped -49.36% vs BLCR's -21.29%.

Which ETF is better, EQWL or BLCR?

On 1-year performance, BLCR leads with 47.09% vs 21.89% for EQWL. On fees, EQWL is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, EQWL has been the lower-risk option at 2.66%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EQWL or BLCR?

Over the 1-year period, BLCR has performed better with a 47.09% return vs 21.89%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EQWL or BLCR?

EQWL is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.36% for BLCR.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, EQWL or BLCR?

EQWL has the higher dividend yield at 1.54%, compared with 0.23% for BLCR.

What is the main difference between EQWL and BLCR?

They also come from different issuers: Invesco and BlackRock. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for EQWL and 0.36% for BLCR.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

BLCR currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.05 vs 2.12), 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.