GRPM vs. XMHQ

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

GRPM (Invesco S&P MidCap 400® GARP ETF) and XMHQ (Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - GRPM is a Mid Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the S&P MidCap 400® GARP Index, while XMHQ is a Quality Factor fund tracking the S&P MidCap 400 Quality Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, GRPM returned 11.33%/yr vs 12.83%/yr for XMHQ. Their correlation of 0.84 means they have usually moved in the same direction. GRPM charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for XMHQ.

Performance

GRPM vs. XMHQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P MidCap 400® GARP ETF (GRPM) and Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with GRPM having a 13.17% return and XMHQ slightly lower at 12.54%. Over the past 10 years, GRPM has underperformed XMHQ with an annualized return of 11.33%, while XMHQ has yielded a comparatively higher 12.83% annualized return.

GRPM

• 1D: -0.35%
• 1M: 2.06%
• 6M: 11.71%
• YTD: 13.17%
• 1Y: 21.04%
• 3Y*: 13.73%
• 5Y*: 9.29%
• 10Y*: 11.33%
• ALL TIME*: 11.48%

XMHQ

• 1D: 0.26%
• 1M: 1.40%
• 6M: 8.28%
• YTD: 12.54%
• 1Y: 16.17%
• 3Y*: 13.54%
• 5Y*: 10.18%
• 10Y*: 12.83%
• ALL TIME*: 9.48%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
GRPM Invesco S&P MidCap 400® GARP ETF	$1.43M	$1.18M	$1.33M
XMHQ Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF	$19.95M	$19.43M	$20.53M

GRPM vs. XMHQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
GRPM Invesco S&P MidCap 400® GARP ETF	13.17%	7.81%	15.67%	18.79%	-11.63%	26.35%	15.60%	23.05%	-12.45%	13.05%
XMHQ Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF	12.54%	4.71%	16.79%	29.51%	-12.42%	20.98%	26.61%	27.18%	-9.08%	15.64%

Correlation

The correlation between GRPM and XMHQ is 0.85, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.85
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.90
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.93
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.	0.88
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 8, 2010	0.84

The correlation between GRPM and XMHQ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.84 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

GRPM vs. XMHQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GRPM	XMHQ
Financial Services	23.3%	15.1%
Technology	20.8%	18.5%
Healthcare	19.0%	16.0%
Consumer Cyclical	13.1%	9.4%
Industrials	12.3%	30.2%
Energy	5.0%	6.9%
Basic Materials	3.8%	1.5%
Consumer Defensive	2.6%	1.1%
Communication Services	-	1.4%
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	2.2%

Return for Risk

GRPM vs. XMHQ — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

GRPM

GRPM Risk / Return Rank: 58
GRPM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 53
GRPM Sortino Ratio Rank: 53
GRPM Omega Ratio Rank: 49
GRPM Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
GRPM Martin Ratio Rank: 64

XMHQ

XMHQ Risk / Return Rank: 41
XMHQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
XMHQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 40
XMHQ Omega Ratio Rank: 35
XMHQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 46
XMHQ Martin Ratio Rank: 44

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

GRPM vs. XMHQ - 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 MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ). 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	XMHQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.26	0.95	+0.31
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.88	1.47	+0.40
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.17	+0.05
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.58	1.64	+0.94
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.67	4.86	+2.81

GRPM vs. XMHQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GRPM Sharpe Ratio is 1.26, which is higher than the XMHQ Sharpe Ratio of 0.95. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GRPM and XMHQ, 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

GRPM vs. XMHQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GRPM drawdown since its inception was -43.12%, smaller than the maximum XMHQ drawdown of -58.19%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GRPM and XMHQ.

Drawdown Indicators

	GRPM	XMHQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-43.12%	-58.19%	+15.07%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.62%	-8.85%	+1.23%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-28.09%	-24.56%	-3.53%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-28.09%	-25.47%	-2.62%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-43.12%	-36.90%	-6.22%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.19%	-0.02%	-1.17%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.66%	-9.22%	+3.56%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.56%	2.97%	-0.41%

Volatility

GRPM vs. XMHQ - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P MidCap 400® GARP ETF (GRPM) has a higher volatility of 4.04% compared to Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ) at 3.13%. This indicates that GRPM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XMHQ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GRPM	XMHQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.04%	3.13%	+0.91%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	10.51%	11.07%	-0.56%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.65%	15.30%	+0.35%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.80%	20.57%	+0.23%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.19%	20.63%	+1.56%

GRPM vs. XMHQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

GRPM has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than XMHQ's 0.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

GRPM vs. XMHQ - Dividend Comparison

GRPM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.70%, more than XMHQ's 0.56% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
GRPM Invesco S&P MidCap 400® GARP ETF	0.70%	1.19%	0.95%	0.96%	1.28%	0.92%	1.16%	1.25%	1.50%	1.14%	1.00%	1.43%
XMHQ Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF	0.56%	0.64%	5.20%	0.73%	1.72%	1.00%	1.12%	1.22%	1.59%	1.06%	1.63%	1.34%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GRPM and XMHQ in my portfolio?

GRPM and XMHQ have a correlation of 0.85, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GRPM or XMHQ?

GRPM has higher volatility (4.04%) compared to XMHQ (3.13%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GRPM dropped -43.12% vs XMHQ's -58.19%.

Which ETF is better, GRPM or XMHQ?

On 10-year performance, XMHQ leads with 12.83% vs 11.33% for GRPM. On fees, XMHQ is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, XMHQ has been the lower-risk option at 3.13%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GRPM or XMHQ?

Over the 10-year period, XMHQ has performed better with a 12.83% return vs 11.33%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GRPM or XMHQ?

XMHQ is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for GRPM.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GRPM or XMHQ?

GRPM has the higher dividend yield at 0.70%, compared with 0.56% for XMHQ.

What is the main difference between GRPM and XMHQ?

GRPM is categorized as Mid Cap Blend Equities, while XMHQ is Quality Factor. GRPM tracks S&P MidCap 400® GARP Index, while XMHQ tracks S&P MidCap 400 Quality Index. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for GRPM and 0.25% for XMHQ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GRPM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.26 vs 0.95), 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.