KEAT vs. RWL

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

KEAT (Keating Active ETF) and RWL (Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - KEAT is a Global Allocation fund actively managed by Keating, while RWL is a S&P 500 fund tracking the S&P 500 Revenue-Weighted Index. KEAT is actively managed, while RWL is passively managed. Over the past year, KEAT returned 19.26% vs 26.48% for RWL. A 0.54 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. KEAT charges 0.85%/yr vs 0.39%/yr for RWL.

Performance

KEAT vs. RWL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Keating Active ETF (KEAT) and Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF (RWL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, KEAT achieves a 5.33% return, which is significantly lower than RWL's 11.62% return.

KEAT

• 1D: -0.13%
• 1M: -4.84%
• YTD: 5.33%
• 6M: 4.64%
• 1Y: 19.26%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RWL

• 1D: 0.01%
• 1M: 0.79%
• YTD: 11.62%
• 6M: 11.23%
• 1Y: 26.48%
• 3Y*: 19.53%
• 5Y*: 13.46%
• 10Y*: 14.31%

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

KEAT vs. RWL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
KEAT Keating Active ETF	5.33%	22.76%	3.10%
RWL Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF	11.62%	18.65%	7.06%

Correlation

The correlation between KEAT and RWL is 0.46, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.46
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 27, 2024	0.54

The correlation between KEAT and RWL has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.46 to 0.54 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

KEAT vs. RWL — Risk / Return Rank

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

KEAT

KEAT Risk / Return Rank: 50
KEAT Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
KEAT Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
KEAT Omega Ratio Rank: 53
KEAT Calmar Ratio Rank: 44
KEAT Martin Ratio Rank: 45

RWL

RWL Risk / Return Rank: 83
RWL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 84
RWL Sortino Ratio Rank: 85
RWL Omega Ratio Rank: 81
RWL Calmar Ratio Rank: 80
RWL Martin Ratio Rank: 85

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.

KEAT vs. RWL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Keating Active ETF (KEAT) and Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF (RWL). 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.

	KEAT	RWL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.80	2.61	-0.80
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.44	3.61	-1.17
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.46	-0.14
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.12	4.01	-1.89
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.21	16.81	-9.59

KEAT vs. RWL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current KEAT Sharpe Ratio is 1.80, which is lower than the RWL Sharpe Ratio of 2.61. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of KEAT and RWL, 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

KEAT vs. RWL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum KEAT drawdown since its inception was -9.13%, smaller than the maximum RWL drawdown of -54.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for KEAT and RWL.

Drawdown Indicators

	KEAT	RWL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-9.13%	-54.83%	+45.70%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.13%	-6.64%	-2.49%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-14.39%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-17.49%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-36.04%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-9.13%	-1.66%	-7.47%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-1.69%	-6.43%	+4.74%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.68%	1.58%	+1.10%

Volatility

KEAT vs. RWL - Volatility Comparison

Keating Active ETF (KEAT) has a higher volatility of 3.49% compared to Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF (RWL) at 3.16%. This indicates that KEAT's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RWL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	KEAT	RWL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.49%	3.16%	+0.33%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.81%	7.43%	+1.38%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.74%	10.22%	+0.52%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	10.41%	14.51%	-4.10%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	10.41%	16.88%	-6.47%

KEAT vs. RWL - Expense Ratio Comparison

KEAT has a 0.85% expense ratio, which is higher than RWL's 0.39% expense ratio.

Dividends

KEAT vs. RWL - Dividend Comparison

KEAT's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.33%, more than RWL's 1.55% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
KEAT Keating Active ETF	2.33%	2.48%	1.72%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RWL Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF	1.55%	1.35%	1.43%	1.60%	1.62%	1.35%	1.75%	1.87%	1.99%	1.60%	1.71%	1.97%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both KEAT and RWL in my portfolio?

KEAT and RWL have a correlation of 0.46, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, KEAT or RWL?

KEAT has higher volatility (3.49%) compared to RWL (3.16%). In terms of maximum drawdown, KEAT dropped -9.13% vs RWL's -54.83%.

Which ETF is better, KEAT or RWL?

On 1-year performance, RWL leads with 26.48% vs 19.26% for KEAT. On fees, RWL is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, RWL has been the lower-risk option at 3.16%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, KEAT or RWL?

Over the 1-year period, RWL has performed better with a 26.48% return vs 19.26%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, KEAT or RWL?

RWL is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.85% for KEAT.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, KEAT or RWL?

KEAT has the higher dividend yield at 2.33%, compared with 1.55% for RWL.

What is the main difference between KEAT and RWL?

KEAT is categorized as Global Allocation, while RWL is S&P 500. They also come from different issuers: Keating and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.85% for KEAT and 0.39% for RWL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RWL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.61 vs 1.80), 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.