GRPM vs. EQWL
GRPM (Invesco S&P MidCap 400® GARP ETF) and EQWL (Invesco S&P 100 Equal Weight ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GRPM is a Mid Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the S&P MidCap 400® GARP Index, while EQWL is a Large Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the S&P 100 Equal Weight Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, GRPM returned 11.20%/yr vs 14.89%/yr for EQWL. Their correlation of 0.80 suggests significant overlap in exposure. GRPM charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for EQWL.
Performance
GRPM vs. EQWL - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, GRPM achieves a 5.85% return, which is significantly lower than EQWL's 9.55% return. Over the past 10 years, GRPM has underperformed EQWL with an annualized return of 11.20%, while EQWL has yielded a comparatively higher 14.89% annualized return.
GRPM
- 1D
- -0.35%
- 1M
- -0.01%
- YTD
- 5.85%
- 6M
- 3.60%
- 1Y
- 19.03%
- 3Y*
- 14.38%
- 5Y*
- 7.89%
- 10Y*
- 11.20%
EQWL
- 1D
- 0.03%
- 1M
- 1.66%
- YTD
- 9.55%
- 6M
- 9.10%
- 1Y
- 22.70%
- 3Y*
- 19.49%
- 5Y*
- 12.20%
- 10Y*
- 14.89%
GRPM vs. EQWL - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GRPM Invesco S&P MidCap 400® GARP ETF | 5.85% | 7.81% | 15.67% | 18.79% | -11.63% | 26.35% | 15.60% | 23.05% | -12.45% | 13.05% |
EQWL Invesco S&P 100 Equal Weight ETF | 9.55% | 17.61% | 19.11% | 19.48% | -11.46% | 28.29% | 13.94% | 29.54% | -6.30% | 24.41% |
Correlation
The correlation between GRPM and EQWL is 0.76, 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 | 0.76 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.78 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.84 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.82 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 8, 2010 | 0.80 |
The correlation between GRPM and EQWL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.76 to 0.84 - a consistent structural relationship.
GRPM vs. EQWL - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
GRPM
EQWL
Financial Services
Technology
Energy
Healthcare
Consumer Cyclical
Industrials
Consumer Defensive
Basic Materials
-
Communication Services
-
Real Estate
-
Utilities
-
Financial Services
GRPM
EQWL
Technology
GRPM
EQWL
Energy
GRPM
EQWL
Healthcare
GRPM
EQWL
Consumer Cyclical
GRPM
EQWL
Industrials
GRPM
EQWL
Consumer Defensive
GRPM
EQWL
Basic Materials
GRPM
-
EQWL
Communication Services
GRPM
-
EQWL
Real Estate
GRPM
-
EQWL
Utilities
GRPM
-
EQWL
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
GRPM vs. EQWL — Risk / Return Rank
GRPM
EQWL
GRPM vs. EQWL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P MidCap 400® GARP ETF (GRPM) and Invesco S&P 100 Equal Weight ETF (EQWL). 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.
| GRPM | EQWL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | -0.95 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | -1.21 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.21 | 1.38 | -0.17 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 2.51 | 2.94 | -0.43 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 7.36 | 12.29 | -4.93 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
GRPM vs. EQWL - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum GRPM drawdown since its inception was -43.12%, smaller than the maximum EQWL drawdown of -49.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GRPM and EQWL.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| GRPM | EQWL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -43.12% | -49.36% | +6.24% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -7.62% | -7.76% | +0.14% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -28.09% | -14.95% | -13.14% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -28.09% | -22.99% | -5.10% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -43.12% | -34.30% | -8.82% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -2.76% | -0.89% | -1.87% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -5.69% | -6.69% | +1.00% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.59% | 1.85% | +0.74% |
Volatility
GRPM vs. EQWL - Volatility Comparison
Invesco S&P MidCap 400® GARP ETF (GRPM) and Invesco S&P 100 Equal Weight ETF (EQWL) have volatilities of 3.76% and 3.80%, 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.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| GRPM | EQWL | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 3.76% | 3.80% | -0.04% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 10.41% | 8.24% | +2.17% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 16.18% | 10.70% | +5.48% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 20.88% | 15.03% | +5.85% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 22.26% | 16.82% | +5.44% |
GRPM vs. EQWL - Expense Ratio Comparison
GRPM has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than EQWL's 0.25% expense ratio.
Dividends
GRPM vs. EQWL - Dividend Comparison
GRPM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.14%, less than EQWL's 1.93% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EQWL Invesco S&P 100 Equal Weight ETF | 1.93% | 1.67% | 1.86% | 1.97% | 2.12% | 1.65% | 2.01% | 2.04% | 2.23% | 1.27% | 2.01% | 2.03% |
GRPM Invesco S&P MidCap 400® GARP ETF | 1.14% | 1.19% | 0.95% | 0.96% | 1.28% | 0.92% | 1.16% | 1.25% | 1.50% | 1.14% | 1.00% | 1.43% |
Frequently Asked Questions
GRPM and EQWL have a correlation of 0.76, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
EQWL has higher volatility (3.80%) compared to GRPM (3.76%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GRPM dropped -43.12% vs EQWL's -49.36%.
On 10-year performance, EQWL leads with 14.89% vs 11.20% for GRPM. On fees, EQWL is cheaper at 0.25% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, EQWL has performed better with a 14.89% return vs 11.20%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
EQWL is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for GRPM.
EQWL has the higher dividend yield at 1.93%, compared with 1.14% for GRPM.
GRPM is categorized as Mid Cap Blend Equities, while EQWL is Large Cap Blend Equities. GRPM tracks S&P MidCap 400® GARP Index, while EQWL tracks S&P 100 Equal Weight Index. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for GRPM and 0.25% for EQWL.
EQWL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.13 vs 1.18), 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.
Find the right allocation for GRPM and EQWL
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