EQWL vs. RSSY

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

EQWL (Invesco S&P 100 Equal Weight ETF) and RSSY (Return Stacked US Stocks & Futures Yield ETF) are both Large Cap Blend Equities funds. EQWL is passively managed, while RSSY is actively managed. Over the past year, EQWL returned 21.89% vs 47.81% for RSSY. A 0.50 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. EQWL charges 0.25%/yr vs 1.04%/yr for RSSY.

Performance

EQWL vs. RSSY - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P 100 Equal Weight ETF (EQWL) and Return Stacked US Stocks & Futures Yield ETF (RSSY). 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 RSSY's 32.45% 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%

RSSY

• 1D: -0.16%
• 1M: 1.78%
• YTD: 32.45%
• 6M: 27.13%
• 1Y: 47.81%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

EQWL vs. RSSY - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
EQWL Invesco S&P 100 Equal Weight ETF	8.74%	17.61%	12.45%
RSSY Return Stacked US Stocks & Futures Yield ETF	32.45%	-3.52%	1.10%

Correlation

The correlation between EQWL and RSSY is 0.43, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.43
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 30, 2024	0.50

The correlation between EQWL and RSSY has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.43 to 0.50 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

EQWL vs. RSSY — 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

RSSY

RSSY Risk / Return Rank: 93
RSSY Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
RSSY Sortino Ratio Rank: 93
RSSY Omega Ratio Rank: 93
RSSY Calmar Ratio Rank: 92
RSSY 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. RSSY - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P 100 Equal Weight ETF (EQWL) and Return Stacked US Stocks & Futures Yield ETF (RSSY). 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	RSSY	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.12	3.63	-1.51
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.99	4.78	-1.79
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.65	-0.28
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.83	6.53	-3.70
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	11.94	22.39	-10.45
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. RSSY - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current EQWL Sharpe Ratio is 2.12, which is lower than the RSSY Sharpe Ratio of 3.63. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of EQWL and RSSY, 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	RSSY	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.12	3.63	-1.51
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	0.75	-0.15

Drawdowns

EQWL vs. RSSY - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum EQWL drawdown since its inception was -49.36%, which is greater than RSSY's maximum drawdown of -29.57%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for EQWL and RSSY.

Drawdown Indicators

	EQWL	RSSY	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-49.36%	-29.57%	-19.79%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.76%	-7.36%	-0.40%
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%	-0.16%	-0.37%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.70%	-7.37%	+0.67%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.84%	2.14%	-0.30%

Volatility

EQWL vs. RSSY - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P 100 Equal Weight ETF (EQWL) has a higher volatility of 2.66% compared to Return Stacked US Stocks & Futures Yield ETF (RSSY) at 2.30%. This indicates that EQWL's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RSSY based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	EQWL	RSSY	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.66%	2.30%	+0.36%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.66%	9.92%	-2.26%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.37%	13.28%	-2.91%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.98%	18.35%	-3.37%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	16.79%	18.35%	-1.56%

EQWL vs. RSSY - Expense Ratio Comparison

EQWL has a 0.25% expense ratio, which is lower than RSSY's 1.04% expense ratio.

Dividends

EQWL vs. RSSY - Dividend Comparison

EQWL's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.54%, which matches RSSY's 1.54% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
RSSY Return Stacked US Stocks & Futures Yield ETF	1.54%	2.04%	0.00%	0.00%	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 RSSY in my portfolio?

EQWL and RSSY have a correlation of 0.43, 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 RSSY?

EQWL has higher volatility (2.66%) compared to RSSY (2.30%). In terms of maximum drawdown, EQWL dropped -49.36% vs RSSY's -29.57%.

Which ETF is better, EQWL or RSSY?

On 1-year performance, RSSY leads with 47.81% vs 21.89% for EQWL. On fees, EQWL is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, RSSY has been the lower-risk option at 2.30%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, EQWL or RSSY?

Over the 1-year period, RSSY has performed better with a 47.81% 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 RSSY?

EQWL is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 1.04% for RSSY.

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

EQWL and RSSY have nearly identical dividend yields, around 1.54%.

What is the main difference between EQWL and RSSY?

They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Return Stacked. Their fees differ too: 0.25% for EQWL and 1.04% for RSSY.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RSSY currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.63 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.