FBDC vs. RSPF

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

FBDC (FT Confluence BDC & Specialty Finance Income ETF) and RSPF (Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Financials ETF) are both Financials Equities funds. FBDC is actively managed, while RSPF is passively managed. Over the past year, FBDC returned -11.30% vs 11.31% for RSPF. A 0.54 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FBDC charges 1.35%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for RSPF.

Performance

FBDC vs. RSPF - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in FT Confluence BDC & Specialty Finance Income ETF (FBDC) and Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Financials ETF (RSPF). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FBDC achieves a -4.10% return, which is significantly lower than RSPF's 6.94% return.

FBDC

• 1D: 1.74%
• 1M: 4.48%
• 6M: -6.58%
• YTD: -4.10%
• 1Y: -11.30%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RSPF

• 1D: 1.08%
• 1M: 6.38%
• 6M: 5.86%
• YTD: 6.94%
• 1Y: 11.31%
• 3Y*: 18.53%
• 5Y*: 9.26%
• 10Y*: 12.57%

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

FBDC vs. RSPF - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
FBDC FT Confluence BDC & Specialty Finance Income ETF	-4.10%	-2.66%
RSPF Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Financials ETF	6.94%	4.82%

Correlation

The correlation between FBDC and RSPF is 0.55, 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	0.55
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 30, 2025	0.54

The correlation between FBDC and RSPF has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.54 to 0.55 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

FBDC vs. RSPF — Risk / Return Rank

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

FBDC

FBDC Risk / Return Rank: 4
FBDC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4
FBDC Sortino Ratio Rank: 4
FBDC Omega Ratio Rank: 4
FBDC Calmar Ratio Rank: 5
FBDC Martin Ratio Rank: 5

RSPF

RSPF Risk / Return Rank: 24
RSPF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 25
RSPF Sortino Ratio Rank: 24
RSPF Omega Ratio Rank: 23
RSPF Calmar Ratio Rank: 22
RSPF Martin Ratio Rank: 23

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.

FBDC vs. RSPF - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for FT Confluence BDC & Specialty Finance Income ETF (FBDC) and Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Financials ETF (RSPF). 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.

	FBDC	RSPF	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.63	0.74	-1.37
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.80	1.12	-1.92
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.91	1.14	-0.23
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.55	0.80	-1.35
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.93	2.20	-3.12

FBDC vs. RSPF - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FBDC Sharpe Ratio is -0.63, which is lower than the RSPF Sharpe Ratio of 0.74. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FBDC and RSPF, 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

FBDC vs. RSPF - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FBDC drawdown since its inception was -20.60%, smaller than the maximum RSPF drawdown of -81.32%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FBDC and RSPF.

Drawdown Indicators

	FBDC	RSPF	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.60%	-81.32%	+60.72%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-20.60%	-14.13%	-6.47%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-18.26%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-27.68%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-44.80%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-12.29%	0.00%	-12.29%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.74%	-18.94%	+8.20%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	12.23%	5.16%	+7.07%

Volatility

FBDC vs. RSPF - Volatility Comparison

FT Confluence BDC & Specialty Finance Income ETF (FBDC) and Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Financials ETF (RSPF) have volatilities of 4.45% and 4.54%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FBDC	RSPF	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.45%	4.54%	-0.09%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.59%	11.68%	+2.91%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.06%	15.30%	+2.76%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.86%	19.73%	-1.87%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.86%	22.83%	-4.97%

FBDC vs. RSPF - Expense Ratio Comparison

FBDC has a 1.35% expense ratio, which is higher than RSPF's 0.40% expense ratio.

Dividends

FBDC vs. RSPF - Dividend Comparison

FBDC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 11.99%, more than RSPF's 1.51% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FBDC FT Confluence BDC & Specialty Finance Income ETF	11.99%	5.41%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RSPF Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Financials ETF	1.51%	1.55%	1.65%	2.16%	1.95%	1.56%	2.24%	1.85%	2.51%	1.28%	37.55%	2.17%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FBDC and RSPF in my portfolio?

FBDC and RSPF have a correlation of 0.55, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FBDC or RSPF?

RSPF has higher volatility (4.54%) compared to FBDC (4.45%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FBDC dropped -20.60% vs RSPF's -81.32%.

Which ETF is better, FBDC or RSPF?

On 1-year performance, RSPF leads with 11.31% vs -11.30% for FBDC. On fees, RSPF is cheaper at 0.40% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FBDC or RSPF?

Over the 1-year period, RSPF has performed better with a 11.31% return vs -11.30%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FBDC or RSPF?

RSPF is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 1.35% for FBDC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FBDC or RSPF?

FBDC has the higher dividend yield at 11.99%, compared with 1.51% for RSPF.

What is the main difference between FBDC and RSPF?

They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 1.35% for FBDC and 0.40% for RSPF.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RSPF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.74 vs -0.63), 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.