EQWL vs. PIT

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

EQWL (Invesco S&P 100 Equal Weight ETF) and PIT (VanEck Commodity Strategy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - EQWL is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the S&P 100 Equal Weight Index, while PIT is a Commodities fund actively managed by VanEck. EQWL is passively managed, while PIT is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, EQWL returned 19.49%/yr vs 19.51%/yr for PIT. At a 0.08 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. EQWL charges 0.25%/yr vs 0.55%/yr for PIT.

Performance

EQWL vs. PIT - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, EQWL achieves a 9.55% return, which is significantly lower than PIT's 27.31% return.

EQWL

• 1D: 0.03%
• 1M: 1.66%
• YTD: 9.55%
• 6M: 9.10%
• 1Y: 22.70%
• 3Y*: 19.49%
• 5Y*: 12.20%
• 10Y*: 14.89%

PIT

• 1D: -0.75%
• 1M: -10.60%
• YTD: 27.31%
• 6M: 26.74%
• 1Y: 38.33%
• 3Y*: 19.51%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

EQWL vs. PIT - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
EQWL Invesco S&P 100 Equal Weight ETF	9.55%	17.61%	19.11%	19.48%	-0.36%
PIT VanEck Commodity Strategy ETF	27.31%	21.63%	6.77%	-4.54%	1.67%

Correlation

The correlation between EQWL and PIT is -0.11, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.11
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.01
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 22, 2022	0.08

The correlation between EQWL and PIT shifts across timeframes, from -0.11 (1 year) to 0.08 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Return for Risk

EQWL vs. PIT — Risk / Return Rank

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

EQWL

EQWL Risk / Return Rank: 66
EQWL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 68
EQWL Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
EQWL Omega Ratio Rank: 66
EQWL Calmar Ratio Rank: 61
EQWL Martin Ratio Rank: 69

PIT

PIT Risk / Return Rank: 55
PIT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 54
PIT Sortino Ratio Rank: 48
PIT Omega Ratio Rank: 52
PIT Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
PIT Martin Ratio Rank: 62

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. PIT - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P 100 Equal Weight ETF (EQWL) and VanEck Commodity Strategy ETF (PIT). 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.

	EQWL	PIT	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.13	1.78	+0.35
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.98	2.32	+0.67
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.32	+0.06
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.94	2.74	+0.20
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.29	10.88	+1.41

EQWL vs. PIT - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EQWL Sharpe Ratio is 2.13, which is comparable to the PIT Sharpe Ratio of 1.78. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EQWL and PIT, 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

EQWL vs. PIT - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EQWL drawdown since its inception was -49.36%, which is greater than PIT's maximum drawdown of -14.05%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EQWL and PIT.

Drawdown Indicators

	EQWL	PIT	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-49.36%	-14.05%	-35.31%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.76%	-14.05%	+6.29%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.95%	-14.05%	-0.90%
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	-0.89%	-14.05%	+13.16%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.69%	-4.07%	-2.62%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.85%	3.59%	-1.74%

Volatility

EQWL vs. PIT - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P 100 Equal Weight ETF (EQWL) is 3.80%, while VanEck Commodity Strategy ETF (PIT) has a volatility of 4.67%. This indicates that EQWL experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than PIT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EQWL	PIT	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.80%	4.67%	-0.87%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.24%	19.36%	-11.12%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.70%	21.66%	-10.96%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.03%	17.50%	-2.47%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.82%	17.50%	-0.68%

EQWL vs. PIT - Expense Ratio Comparison

EQWL has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than PIT's 0.55% expense ratio.

Dividends

EQWL vs. PIT - Dividend Comparison

EQWL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.93%, less than PIT's 7.00% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
EQWL Invesco S&P 100 Equal Weight ETF	1.93%	1.67%	1.86%	1.97%	2.12%	1.65%	2.01%	2.04%	2.23%	1.27%	2.01%	2.03%
PIT VanEck Commodity Strategy ETF	7.00%	8.92%	3.59%	6.44%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both EQWL and PIT in my portfolio?

EQWL and PIT have a correlation of -0.11, 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 PIT?

PIT has higher volatility (4.67%) compared to EQWL (3.80%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EQWL dropped -49.36% vs PIT's -14.05%.

Which ETF is better, EQWL or PIT?

On 3-year performance, PIT leads with 19.51% vs 19.49% for EQWL. On fees, EQWL is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, EQWL has been the lower-risk option at 3.80%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EQWL or PIT?

Over the 3-year period, PIT has performed better with a 19.51% return vs 19.49%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, EQWL or PIT?

EQWL is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for PIT.

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

PIT has the higher dividend yield at 7.00%, compared with 1.93% for EQWL.

What is the main difference between EQWL and PIT?

EQWL is categorized as Large Cap Blend Equities, while PIT is Commodities. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and VanEck. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for EQWL and 0.55% for PIT.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

EQWL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.13 vs 1.78), 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.