GRPZ vs. RFG

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

GRPZ (Invesco S&P Smallcap 600 GARP ETF) and RFG (Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF) are both Small Cap Growth Equities funds from Invesco - GRPZ tracks the S&P SmallCap 600 GARP Index while RFG tracks the S&P Mid Cap 400 Pure Growth. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, GRPZ returned 31.76% vs 19.95% for RFG. Their 0.77 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. Both charge a 0.35% expense ratio.

Performance

GRPZ vs. RFG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P Smallcap 600 GARP ETF (GRPZ) and Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF (RFG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, GRPZ achieves a 22.54% return, which is significantly higher than RFG's 13.90% return.

GRPZ

• 1D: -0.32%
• 1M: 0.21%
• 6M: 15.61%
• YTD: 22.54%
• 1Y: 31.76%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 12.48%

RFG

• 1D: 0.12%
• 1M: -4.54%
• 6M: 8.66%
• YTD: 13.90%
• 1Y: 19.95%
• 3Y*: 14.10%
• 5Y*: 6.33%
• 10Y*: 9.64%
• ALL TIME*: 9.54%

*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)
GRPZ Invesco S&P Smallcap 600 GARP ETF	$15.52K	$24.90K	$26.26K
RFG Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF	$240.77K	$300.86K	$394.29K

GRPZ vs. RFG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
GRPZ Invesco S&P Smallcap 600 GARP ETF	22.54%	3.09%	4.27%
RFG Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF	13.90%	8.80%	-3.13%

Correlation

The correlation between GRPZ and RFG is 0.66, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.66
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 27, 2024	0.77

The correlation between GRPZ and RFG shifts across timeframes, from 0.66 (1 year) to 0.77 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

GRPZ vs. RFG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	GRPZ	RFG
Financial Services	26.4%	3.4%
Healthcare	18.8%	19.3%
Technology	13.2%	23.3%
Industrials	12.3%	31.6%
Consumer Defensive	9.5%	2.4%
Consumer Cyclical	9.2%	6.7%
Real Estate	4.0%	1.9%
Energy	3.4%	4.0%
Communication Services	3.2%	1.6%
Basic Materials	0.9%	3.6%
Utilities	-	2.2%

Return for Risk

GRPZ vs. RFG — Risk / Return Rank

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

GRPZ

GRPZ Risk / Return Rank: 75
GRPZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 74
GRPZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 80
GRPZ Omega Ratio Rank: 68
GRPZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 83
GRPZ Martin Ratio Rank: 72

RFG

RFG Risk / Return Rank: 43
RFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
RFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
RFG Omega Ratio Rank: 36
RFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
RFG Martin Ratio Rank: 53

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.

GRPZ vs. RFG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P Smallcap 600 GARP ETF (GRPZ) and Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF (RFG). 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.

	GRPZ	RFG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.69	0.95	+0.73
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.59	1.46	+1.12
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.29	1.17	+0.12
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.10	1.81	+1.29
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.97	6.13	+2.84

GRPZ vs. RFG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current GRPZ Sharpe Ratio is 1.69, which is higher than the RFG Sharpe Ratio of 0.95. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of GRPZ and RFG, 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

GRPZ vs. RFG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum GRPZ drawdown since its inception was -27.87%, smaller than the maximum RFG drawdown of -51.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for GRPZ and RFG.

Drawdown Indicators

	GRPZ	RFG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-27.87%	-51.93%	+24.06%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.53%	-10.41%	+0.88%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-26.71%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-35.16%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-42.92%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.71%	-7.56%	+5.85%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.58%	-8.93%	+2.35%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.29%	3.07%	+0.22%

Volatility

GRPZ vs. RFG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P Smallcap 600 GARP ETF (GRPZ) is 4.45%, while Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF (RFG) has a volatility of 6.10%. This indicates that GRPZ experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RFG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	GRPZ	RFG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.45%	6.10%	-1.65%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.74%	16.32%	-4.58%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.55%	19.84%	-2.29%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.81%	22.99%	-2.18%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.81%	23.10%	-2.29%

GRPZ vs. RFG - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both GRPZ and RFG have an expense ratio of 0.35%.

Dividends

GRPZ vs. RFG - Dividend Comparison

GRPZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.88%, more than RFG's 0.15% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
GRPZ Invesco S&P Smallcap 600 GARP ETF	0.88%	0.97%	0.73%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RFG Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF	0.15%	0.43%	0.38%	0.99%	0.78%	0.05%	0.27%	0.64%	0.76%	0.66%	0.35%	0.61%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both GRPZ and RFG in my portfolio?

GRPZ and RFG have a correlation of 0.66, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, GRPZ or RFG?

RFG has higher volatility (6.10%) compared to GRPZ (4.45%). In terms of maximum drawdown, GRPZ dropped -27.87% vs RFG's -51.93%.

Which ETF is better, GRPZ or RFG?

On 1-year performance, GRPZ leads with 31.76% vs 19.95% for RFG. Both ETFs have the same 0.35% expense ratio. On volatility, GRPZ has been the lower-risk option at 4.45%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, GRPZ or RFG?

Over the 1-year period, GRPZ has performed better with a 31.76% return vs 19.95%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, GRPZ or RFG?

GRPZ and RFG have the same expense ratio: 0.35% per year.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, GRPZ or RFG?

GRPZ has the higher dividend yield at 0.88%, compared with 0.15% for RFG.

What is the main difference between GRPZ and RFG?

GRPZ tracks S&P SmallCap 600 GARP Index, while RFG tracks S&P Mid Cap 400 Pure Growth.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GRPZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.69 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.