FDIF vs. RPG

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

FDIF (Fidelity Disruptors ETF) and RPG (Invesco S&P 500 Pure Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. FDIF is actively managed, while RPG is passively managed. Over the past 3 years, FDIF returned 17.17%/yr vs 27.72%/yr for RPG. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. FDIF charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for RPG.

Performance

FDIF vs. RPG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Disruptors ETF (FDIF) and Invesco S&P 500 Pure Growth ETF (RPG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FDIF achieves a 8.49% return, which is significantly lower than RPG's 30.31% return.

FDIF

• 1D: -2.20%
• 1M: 2.28%
• YTD: 8.49%
• 6M: 7.46%
• 1Y: 20.38%
• 3Y*: 17.17%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RPG

• 1D: -4.60%
• 1M: 5.48%
• YTD: 30.31%
• 6M: 27.62%
• 1Y: 38.51%
• 3Y*: 27.72%
• 5Y*: 11.59%
• 10Y*: 15.14%

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

FDIF vs. RPG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
FDIF Fidelity Disruptors ETF	8.49%	13.83%	19.74%	5.83%
RPG Invesco S&P 500 Pure Growth ETF	30.31%	13.41%	28.23%	7.71%

Correlation

The correlation between FDIF and RPG is 0.84, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.84
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.84
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 20, 2023	0.83

The correlation between FDIF and RPG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.83 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.

FDIF vs. RPG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FDIF	RPG
Technology	40.4%	46.9%
Healthcare	16.9%	6.4%
Communication Services	13.5%	5.4%
Industrials	12.1%	14.0%
Financial Services	11.6%	5.3%
Consumer Cyclical	5.3%	14.7%
Real Estate	0.1%	1.0%
Basic Materials	-	1.2%
Consumer Defensive	-	1.1%
Energy	-	1.6%
Utilities	-	2.4%

Return for Risk

FDIF vs. RPG — Risk / Return Rank

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

FDIF

FDIF Risk / Return Rank: 32
FDIF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 33
FDIF Sortino Ratio Rank: 31
FDIF Omega Ratio Rank: 32
FDIF Calmar Ratio Rank: 29
FDIF Martin Ratio Rank: 36

RPG

RPG Risk / Return Rank: 61
RPG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
RPG Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
RPG Omega Ratio Rank: 53
RPG Calmar Ratio Rank: 72
RPG Martin Ratio Rank: 73

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.

FDIF vs. RPG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Disruptors ETF (FDIF) and Invesco S&P 500 Pure Growth ETF (RPG). 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.

	FDIF	RPG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.13	1.75	-0.63
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.61	2.37	-0.76
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	1.31	-0.11
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.38	3.49	-2.11
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.16	13.16	-8.00

FDIF vs. RPG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FDIF Sharpe Ratio is 1.13, which is lower than the RPG Sharpe Ratio of 1.75. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FDIF and RPG, 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

FDIF vs. RPG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FDIF drawdown since its inception was -22.63%, smaller than the maximum RPG drawdown of -53.27%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FDIF and RPG.

Drawdown Indicators

	FDIF	RPG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-22.63%	-53.27%	+30.64%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.80%	-11.08%	-3.72%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.63%	-24.75%	+2.12%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-35.59%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-36.58%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.41%	-4.60%	+2.19%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.81%	-8.83%	+5.02%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.96%	2.93%	+1.03%

Volatility

FDIF vs. RPG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Fidelity Disruptors ETF (FDIF) is 7.68%, while Invesco S&P 500 Pure Growth ETF (RPG) has a volatility of 11.10%. This indicates that FDIF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RPG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FDIF	RPG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.68%	11.10%	-3.42%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.87%	19.02%	-4.15%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.15%	22.09%	-3.94%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.87%	23.86%	-4.99%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.87%	22.90%	-4.03%

FDIF vs. RPG - Expense Ratio Comparison

FDIF has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than RPG's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

FDIF vs. RPG - Dividend Comparison

FDIF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.27%, more than RPG's 0.15% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FDIF Fidelity Disruptors ETF	0.27%	0.36%	0.35%	0.21%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RPG Invesco S&P 500 Pure Growth ETF	0.15%	0.24%	0.25%	1.44%	0.74%	0.00%	0.46%	0.83%	0.47%	0.56%	0.43%	0.73%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FDIF and RPG in my portfolio?

FDIF and RPG have a correlation of 0.84, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FDIF or RPG?

RPG has higher volatility (11.10%) compared to FDIF (7.68%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FDIF dropped -22.63% vs RPG's -53.27%.

Which ETF is better, FDIF or RPG?

On 3-year performance, RPG leads with 27.72% vs 17.17% for FDIF. On fees, RPG is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, FDIF has been the lower-risk option at 7.68%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FDIF or RPG?

Over the 3-year period, RPG has performed better with a 27.72% return vs 17.17%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FDIF or RPG?

RPG is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for FDIF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FDIF or RPG?

FDIF has the higher dividend yield at 0.27%, compared with 0.15% for RPG.

What is the main difference between FDIF and RPG?

They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for FDIF and 0.35% for RPG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RPG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.75 vs 1.13), 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.