FFGX vs. RWL

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

FFGX (Fidelity Fundamental Global ex-U.S. ETF) and RWL (Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FFGX is a Foreign Large Cap Equities fund actively managed by Fidelity, while RWL is a S&P 500 fund tracking the S&P 500 Revenue-Weighted Index. FFGX is actively managed, while RWL is passively managed. Over the past year, FFGX returned 30.36% vs 26.48% for RWL. A 0.59 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FFGX charges 0.55%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for RWL.

Performance

FFGX vs. RWL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Fidelity Fundamental Global ex-U.S. ETF (FFGX) and Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF (RWL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FFGX achieves a 17.68% return, which is significantly higher than RWL's 11.62% return.

FFGX

• 1D: 0.55%
• 1M: 5.85%
• YTD: 17.68%
• 6M: 18.30%
• 1Y: 30.36%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RWL

• 1D: 0.01%
• 1M: 0.79%
• YTD: 11.62%
• 6M: 11.23%
• 1Y: 26.48%
• 3Y*: 19.53%
• 5Y*: 13.46%
• 10Y*: 14.31%

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

FFGX vs. RWL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
FFGX Fidelity Fundamental Global ex-U.S. ETF	17.68%	27.85%	-9.98%
RWL Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF	11.62%	18.65%	-3.10%

Correlation

The correlation between FFGX and RWL is 0.61, 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	0.61
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 21, 2024	0.59

The correlation between FFGX and RWL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.59 to 0.61 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

FFGX vs. RWL — Risk / Return Rank

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

FFGX

FFGX Risk / Return Rank: 50
FFGX Sharpe Ratio Rank: 48
FFGX Sortino Ratio Rank: 47
FFGX Omega Ratio Rank: 50
FFGX Calmar Ratio Rank: 49
FFGX Martin Ratio Rank: 55

RWL

RWL Risk / Return Rank: 83
RWL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
RWL Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
RWL Omega Ratio Rank: 81
RWL Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
RWL Martin Ratio Rank: 85

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.

FFGX vs. RWL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Fundamental Global ex-U.S. ETF (FFGX) and Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF (RWL). 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.

	FFGX	RWL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.61	2.61	-0.99
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.27	3.61	-1.34
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.46	-0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.37	4.01	-1.64
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	9.21	16.81	-7.60

FFGX vs. RWL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FFGX Sharpe Ratio is 1.61, which is lower than the RWL Sharpe Ratio of 2.61. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FFGX and RWL, 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

FFGX vs. RWL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FFGX drawdown since its inception was -14.95%, smaller than the maximum RWL drawdown of -54.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FFGX and RWL.

Drawdown Indicators

	FFGX	RWL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-14.95%	-54.83%	+39.88%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.86%	-6.64%	-6.22%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-14.39%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-17.49%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-36.04%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-1.66%	+1.66%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.87%	-6.43%	+3.56%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.31%	1.58%	+1.73%

Volatility

FFGX vs. RWL - Volatility Comparison

Fidelity Fundamental Global ex-U.S. ETF (FFGX) has a higher volatility of 7.56% compared to Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF (RWL) at 3.16%. This indicates that FFGX's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RWL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FFGX	RWL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	7.56%	3.16%	+4.40%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.98%	7.43%	+9.55%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.92%	10.22%	+8.70%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.43%	14.51%	+5.92%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.43%	16.88%	+3.55%

FFGX vs. RWL - Expense Ratio Comparison

FFGX has a 0.55% expense ratio, which is higher than RWL's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

FFGX vs. RWL - Dividend Comparison

FFGX's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.47%, less than RWL's 1.55% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FFGX Fidelity Fundamental Global ex-U.S. ETF	1.47%	1.62%	0.40%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RWL Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF	1.55%	1.35%	1.43%	1.60%	1.62%	1.35%	1.75%	1.87%	1.99%	1.60%	1.71%	1.97%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FFGX and RWL in my portfolio?

FFGX and RWL have a correlation of 0.61, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, FFGX or RWL?

FFGX has higher volatility (7.56%) compared to RWL (3.16%). In terms of maximum drawdown, FFGX dropped -14.95% vs RWL's -54.83%.

Which ETF is better, FFGX or RWL?

On 1-year performance, FFGX leads with 30.36% vs 26.48% for RWL. On fees, RWL is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, RWL has been the lower-risk option at 3.16%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, FFGX or RWL?

Over the 1-year period, FFGX has performed better with a 30.36% return vs 26.48%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, FFGX or RWL?

RWL is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.55% for FFGX.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, FFGX or RWL?

RWL has the higher dividend yield at 1.55%, compared with 1.47% for FFGX.

What is the main difference between FFGX and RWL?

FFGX is categorized as Foreign Large Cap Equities, while RWL is S&P 500. They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.55% for FFGX and 0.39% for RWL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RWL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.61 vs 1.61), 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.