FTMH vs. RSPG
FTMH (Franklin Municipal High Yield ETF) and RSPG (Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Energy ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - FTMH is a High Yield Muni fund actively managed by Franklin Templeton, while RSPG is a Energy Equities fund tracking the S&P 500 Equal Weight Energy Plus Index. FTMH is actively managed, while RSPG is passively managed. At a correlation of -0.20, they often move in opposite directions. FTMH charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.40%/yr for RSPG.
Performance
FTMH vs. RSPG - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, FTMH achieves a 4.22% return, which is significantly lower than RSPG's 27.76% return.
FTMH
- 1D
- 0.08%
- 1M
- 0.76%
- 6M
- 3.28%
- YTD
- 4.22%
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
RSPG
- 1D
- 0.21%
- 1M
- -2.84%
- 6M
- 23.53%
- YTD
- 27.76%
- 1Y
- 32.19%
- 3Y*
- 15.08%
- 5Y*
- 21.24%
- 10Y*
- 8.58%
FTMH vs. RSPG - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | |
|---|---|---|
FTMH Franklin Municipal High Yield ETF | 4.22% | -0.43% |
RSPG Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Energy ETF | 27.76% | 2.89% |
Correlation
The correlation between FTMH and RSPG is -0.20, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 27, 2025 | -0.20 |
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
FTMH vs. RSPG — Risk / Return Rank
FTMH
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
RSPG
FTMH vs. RSPG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin Municipal High Yield ETF (FTMH) 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.
| FTMH | RSPG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.25 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 2.40 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 6.19 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
FTMH vs. RSPG - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum FTMH drawdown since its inception was -3.12%, smaller than the maximum RSPG drawdown of -79.98%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FTMH and RSPG.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| FTMH | RSPG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -3.12% | -79.98% | +76.86% |
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 | -0.51% | -10.24% | +9.73% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -0.59% | -25.39% | +24.80% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 5.31% | — |
Volatility
FTMH vs. RSPG - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| FTMH | RSPG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 6.81% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 16.95% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 3.94% | 21.90% | -17.96% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 3.94% | 28.12% | -24.18% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 3.94% | 33.47% | -29.53% |
FTMH vs. RSPG - Expense Ratio Comparison
FTMH has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than RSPG's 0.40% expense ratio.
Dividends
FTMH vs. RSPG - Dividend Comparison
FTMH's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 3.08%, more than RSPG's 2.08% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
FTMH Franklin Municipal High Yield ETF | 3.08% | 0.86% | 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 | 2.08% | 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
FTMH and RSPG have a correlation of -0.20, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, FTMH is cheaper at 0.35% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
FTMH is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for RSPG.
FTMH has the higher dividend yield at 3.08%, compared with 2.08% for RSPG.
FTMH is categorized as High Yield Muni, while RSPG is Energy Equities. They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for FTMH and 0.40% for RSPG.
Find the right allocation for FTMH 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