ESBG vs. RSPG
ESBG (First Trust Enhanced Stocks, Bonds & Gold ETF) and RSPG (Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Energy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - ESBG is a Tactical Allocation fund actively managed by First Trust, while RSPG is a Energy Equities fund tracking the S&P 500 Equal Weight Energy Plus Index. ESBG is actively managed, while RSPG is passively managed. At a correlation of -0.08, they often move in opposite directions. ESBG charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for RSPG.
Performance
ESBG vs. RSPG - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, ESBG achieves a -3.07% return, which is significantly lower than RSPG's 32.76% return.
ESBG
- 1D
- 0.01%
- 1M
- -3.17%
- 6M
- -7.61%
- YTD
- -3.07%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
RSPG
- 1D
- 1.02%
- 1M
- 6.44%
- 6M
- 26.12%
- YTD
- 32.76%
- 1Y
- 41.92%
- 3Y*
- 16.49%
- 5Y*
- 24.57%
- 10Y*
- 9.20%
ESBG vs. RSPG - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
ESBG First Trust Enhanced Stocks, Bonds & Gold ETF | -3.07% | 5.67% |
RSPG Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Energy ETF | 32.76% | -1.62% |
Correlation
The correlation between ESBG and RSPG is -0.08, 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 19, 2025 | -0.08 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
ESBG vs. RSPG — Risk / Return Rank
ESBG
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
RSPG
ESBG vs. RSPG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Enhanced Stocks, Bonds & Gold ETF (ESBG) 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.
| ESBG | RSPG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.31 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 3.07 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 7.82 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
ESBG vs. RSPG - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum ESBG drawdown since its inception was -18.84%, smaller than the maximum RSPG drawdown of -79.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ESBG and RSPG.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| ESBG | RSPG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -18.84% | -79.98% | +61.14% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -13.72% | — |
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 DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -17.80% | -6.73% | -11.07% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -7.97% | -25.37% | +17.40% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 5.38% | — |
Volatility
ESBG vs. RSPG - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| ESBG | RSPG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 6.04% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 16.79% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 25.52% | 21.92% | +3.60% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 25.52% | 28.05% | -2.53% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 25.52% | 33.46% | -7.94% |
ESBG vs. RSPG - Expense Ratio Comparison
ESBG has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than RSPG's 0.40% expense ratio.
Dividends
ESBG vs. RSPG - Dividend Comparison
ESBG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.12%, less than RSPG's 2.00% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ESBG First Trust Enhanced Stocks, Bonds & Gold ETF | 1.12% | 0.24% | 0.00% | 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 | 2.00% | 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
ESBG and RSPG have a correlation of -0.08, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, RSPG is cheaper at 0.40% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
RSPG is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for ESBG.
RSPG has the higher dividend yield at 2.00%, compared with 1.12% for ESBG.
ESBG is categorized as Tactical Allocation, while RSPG is Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for ESBG and 0.40% for RSPG.
Find the right allocation for ESBG and RSPG
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer