FDIQ vs. SPCZ

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

FDIQ (Invesco Bloomberg Financial Data Providers ETF) and SPCZ (RiverNorth Enhanced Pre-Merger SPAC ETF) are both Financials Equities funds. FDIQ is passively managed, while SPCZ is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, FDIQ returned 18.27%/yr vs 6.50%/yr for SPCZ. At a 0.10 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. FDIQ charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.90%/yr for SPCZ.

Performance

FDIQ vs. SPCZ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Bloomberg Financial Data Providers ETF (FDIQ) and RiverNorth Enhanced Pre-Merger SPAC ETF (SPCZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FDIQ achieves a 9.72% return, which is significantly higher than SPCZ's 1.51% return.

FDIQ

• 1D: -0.97%
• 1M: -5.53%
• YTD: 9.72%
• 6M: 10.28%
• 1Y: 22.98%
• 3Y*: 18.27%
• 5Y*: 3.82%
• 10Y*: 7.60%

SPCZ

• 1D: 0.37%
• 1M: 0.92%
• YTD: 1.51%
• 6M: 1.61%
• 1Y: 4.96%
• 3Y*: 6.50%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

FDIQ vs. SPCZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022
FDIQ Invesco Bloomberg Financial Data Providers ETF	9.72%	6.32%	12.76%	-0.84%	6.88%
SPCZ RiverNorth Enhanced Pre-Merger SPAC ETF	1.51%	10.19%	5.31%	5.93%	1.95%

Correlation

The correlation between FDIQ and SPCZ is 0.13, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.13
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.09
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 13, 2022	0.10

Return for Risk

FDIQ vs. SPCZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

FDIQ

FDIQ Risk / Return Rank: 33
FDIQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 29
FDIQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 30
FDIQ Omega Ratio Rank: 30
FDIQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 42
FDIQ Martin Ratio Rank: 35

SPCZ

SPCZ Risk / Return Rank: 23
SPCZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 20
SPCZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 18
SPCZ Omega Ratio Rank: 27
SPCZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 27
SPCZ Martin Ratio Rank: 24

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.

FDIQ vs. SPCZ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Bloomberg Financial Data Providers ETF (FDIQ) and RiverNorth Enhanced Pre-Merger SPAC ETF (SPCZ). 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.

	FDIQ	SPCZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.04	0.64	+0.40
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.59	0.92	+0.67
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	1.18	+0.02
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.07	1.30	+0.77
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.26	3.12	+2.14
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

FDIQ vs. SPCZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FDIQ Sharpe Ratio is 1.04, which is higher than the SPCZ Sharpe Ratio of 0.64. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FDIQ and SPCZ, 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

	FDIQ	SPCZ	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.04	0.64	+0.40
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.13	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.24	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.37	1.15	-0.78

Drawdowns

FDIQ vs. SPCZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FDIQ drawdown since its inception was -52.86%, which is greater than SPCZ's maximum drawdown of -4.47%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FDIQ and SPCZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	FDIQ	SPCZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-52.86%	-4.47%	-48.39%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.13%	-3.82%	-7.31%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-28.09%	-4.47%	-23.62%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-42.99%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-52.86%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-8.53%	-1.54%	-6.99%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.56%	-0.51%	-11.05%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.38%	1.59%	+2.79%

Volatility

FDIQ vs. SPCZ - Volatility Comparison

Invesco Bloomberg Financial Data Providers ETF (FDIQ) has a higher volatility of 4.06% compared to RiverNorth Enhanced Pre-Merger SPAC ETF (SPCZ) at 0.64%. This indicates that FDIQ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than SPCZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FDIQ	SPCZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.06%	0.64%	+3.42%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	13.93%	6.29%	+7.64%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	22.14%	7.78%	+14.36%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	28.70%	5.59%	+23.11%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	31.12%	5.59%	+25.53%

FDIQ vs. SPCZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

FDIQ has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than SPCZ's 0.90% expense ratio.

Dividends

FDIQ vs. SPCZ - Dividend Comparison

FDIQ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.56%, less than SPCZ's 11.88% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FDIQ Invesco Bloomberg Financial Data Providers ETF	2.56%	2.66%	2.69%	2.89%	2.51%	2.04%	2.92%	2.44%	2.45%	1.59%	1.50%	1.92%
SPCZ RiverNorth Enhanced Pre-Merger SPAC ETF	11.88%	12.06%	4.24%	5.01%	0.22%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FDIQ and SPCZ in my portfolio?

FDIQ and SPCZ have a correlation of 0.13, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FDIQ or SPCZ?

FDIQ has higher volatility (4.06%) compared to SPCZ (0.64%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FDIQ dropped -52.86% vs SPCZ's -4.47%.

Which ETF is better, FDIQ or SPCZ?

On 3-year performance, FDIQ leads with 18.27% vs 6.50% for SPCZ. On fees, FDIQ is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, SPCZ has been the lower-risk option at 0.64%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FDIQ or SPCZ?

Over the 3-year period, FDIQ has performed better with a 18.27% return vs 6.50%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FDIQ or SPCZ?

FDIQ is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.90% for SPCZ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FDIQ or SPCZ?

SPCZ has the higher dividend yield at 11.88%, compared with 2.56% for FDIQ.

What is the main difference between FDIQ and SPCZ?

They also come from different issuers: Invesco and RiverNorth. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for FDIQ and 0.90% for SPCZ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

FDIQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.04 vs 0.64), 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.