IMCG vs. RFG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

IMCG (iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF) and RFG (Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - IMCG is a Mid Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Morningstar US Mid Cap Broad Growth Index, while RFG is a Small Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the S&P Mid Cap 400 Pure Growth. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, IMCG returned 14.46%/yr vs 10.49%/yr for RFG. Their correlation of 0.90 suggests significant overlap in exposure. IMCG charges 0.06%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for RFG.

Performance

IMCG vs. RFG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IMCG) 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, IMCG achieves a 20.05% return, which is significantly lower than RFG's 22.14% return. Over the past 10 years, IMCG has outperformed RFG with an annualized return of 14.46%, while RFG has yielded a comparatively lower 10.49% annualized return.

IMCG

• 1D: -0.26%
• 1M: 8.33%
• YTD: 20.05%
• 6M: 18.28%
• 1Y: 23.35%
• 3Y*: 18.91%
• 5Y*: 8.62%
• 10Y*: 14.46%

RFG

• 1D: 0.61%
• 1M: 7.30%
• YTD: 22.14%
• 6M: 21.89%
• 1Y: 32.96%
• 3Y*: 20.57%
• 5Y*: 8.63%
• 10Y*: 10.49%

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

IMCG vs. RFG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
IMCG iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF	20.05%	6.55%	18.14%	20.73%	-25.79%	15.39%	45.64%	35.70%	-3.68%	25.57%
RFG Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF	22.14%	8.80%	17.80%	16.42%	-21.70%	13.81%	32.86%	17.09%	-13.98%	20.46%

Correlation

The correlation between IMCG and RFG is 0.90, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.90
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.90
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.92
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.90
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 8, 2006	0.90

The correlation between IMCG and RFG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.90 to 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.

IMCG vs. RFG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IMCG	RFG
Technology	30.4%	21.2%
Industrials	26.6%	31.3%
Consumer Cyclical	10.0%	7.6%
Financial Services	9.1%	3.7%
Healthcare	7.4%	19.4%
Basic Materials	4.5%	3.3%
Real Estate	3.4%	2.2%
Utilities	2.7%	2.4%
Communication Services	2.6%	0.6%
Energy	2.1%	5.4%
Consumer Defensive	1.2%	3.1%

Return for Risk

IMCG vs. RFG — Risk / Return Rank

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

IMCG

IMCG Risk / Return Rank: 44
IMCG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 42
IMCG Sortino Ratio Rank: 42
IMCG Omega Ratio Rank: 40
IMCG Calmar Ratio Rank: 46
IMCG Martin Ratio Rank: 52

RFG

RFG Risk / Return Rank: 57
RFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 52
RFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
RFG Omega Ratio Rank: 49
RFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 65
RFG Martin Ratio Rank: 69

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.

IMCG vs. RFG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IMCG) 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.

	IMCG	RFG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.51	1.79	-0.28
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.18	2.55	-0.37
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.26	1.31	-0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.31	3.18	-0.87
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	8.97	12.89	-3.92
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

IMCG vs. RFG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IMCG Sharpe Ratio is 1.51, which is comparable to the RFG Sharpe Ratio of 1.79. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IMCG 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.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	IMCG	RFG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.51	1.79	-0.28
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.43	0.38	+0.05
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.71	0.46	+0.25
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.54	0.43	+0.11

Drawdowns

IMCG vs. RFG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IMCG drawdown since its inception was -58.96%, which is greater than RFG's maximum drawdown of -51.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IMCG and RFG.

Drawdown Indicators

	IMCG	RFG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-58.96%	-51.93%	-7.03%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.17%	-10.41%	+0.24%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-21.92%	-26.71%	+4.79%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-35.08%	-35.16%	+0.08%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-35.08%	-42.92%	+7.84%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.26%	0.00%	-0.26%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.22%	-8.97%	-0.25%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.61%	2.56%	+0.05%

Volatility

IMCG vs. RFG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF (IMCG) is 4.65%, while Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF (RFG) has a volatility of 6.50%. This indicates that IMCG 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

	IMCG	RFG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.65%	6.50%	-1.85%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.53%	14.72%	-2.19%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.53%	18.53%	-3.00%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.17%	22.81%	-2.64%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.51%	23.05%	-2.54%

IMCG vs. RFG - Expense Ratio Comparison

IMCG has a 0.06% expense ratio, which is lower than RFG's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

IMCG vs. RFG - Dividend Comparison

IMCG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.65%, more than RFG's 0.31% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
IMCG iShares Morningstar Mid-Cap Growth ETF	0.65%	0.78%	0.78%	0.85%	0.91%	0.41%	0.09%	0.30%	0.35%	0.45%	0.52%	0.38%
RFG Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF	0.31%	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 IMCG and RFG in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.90, IMCG and RFG move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, IMCG or RFG?

RFG has higher volatility (6.50%) compared to IMCG (4.65%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IMCG dropped -58.96% vs RFG's -51.93%.

Which ETF is better, IMCG or RFG?

On 10-year performance, IMCG leads with 14.46% vs 10.49% for RFG. On fees, IMCG is cheaper at 0.06% per year. On volatility, IMCG has been the lower-risk option at 4.65%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IMCG or RFG?

Over the 10-year period, IMCG has performed better with a 14.46% return vs 10.49%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IMCG or RFG?

IMCG is cheaper with a 0.06% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for RFG.

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

IMCG has the higher dividend yield at 0.65%, compared with 0.31% for RFG.

What is the main difference between IMCG and RFG?

IMCG is categorized as Mid Cap Growth Equities, while RFG is Small Cap Growth Equities. IMCG tracks Morningstar US Mid Cap Broad Growth Index, while RFG tracks S&P Mid Cap 400 Pure Growth. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.06% for IMCG and 0.35% for RFG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RFG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.79 vs 1.51), 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.