NUMG vs. XMHQ

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

NUMG (Nuveen ESG Mid-Cap Growth ETF) and XMHQ (Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - NUMG is a Mid Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the MSCI TIAA ESG USA Mid Cap Growth, while XMHQ is a Mid Cap Blend Equities fund tracking the S&P MidCap 400 Quality Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, NUMG returned -0.44%/yr vs 10.66%/yr for XMHQ. A 0.77 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. NUMG charges 0.30%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for XMHQ.

Performance

NUMG vs. XMHQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Nuveen ESG Mid-Cap Growth ETF (NUMG) and Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, NUMG achieves a -2.71% return, which is significantly lower than XMHQ's 10.84% return.

NUMG

• 1D: -0.26%
• 1M: 1.20%
• 6M: -3.35%
• YTD: -2.71%
• 1Y: -2.73%
• 3Y*: 4.75%
• 5Y*: -0.44%
• 10Y*: —

XMHQ

• 1D: 0.46%
• 1M: 1.66%
• 6M: 4.07%
• YTD: 10.84%
• 1Y: 14.99%
• 3Y*: 13.30%
• 5Y*: 10.66%
• 10Y*: 12.60%

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

NUMG vs. XMHQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
NUMG Nuveen ESG Mid-Cap Growth ETF	-2.71%	0.78%	11.99%	20.47%	-28.31%	12.27%	45.73%	34.87%	-5.79%	19.00%
XMHQ Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF	10.84%	4.71%	16.79%	29.51%	-12.42%	20.98%	26.61%	27.18%	-9.08%	15.64%

Correlation

The correlation between NUMG and XMHQ 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	0.83
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.85
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 14, 2016	0.77

The correlation between NUMG and XMHQ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.76 to 0.85 - a consistent structural relationship.

NUMG vs. XMHQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	NUMG	XMHQ
Technology	33.4%	13.5%
Industrials	24.6%	25.9%
Healthcare	13.5%	20.4%
Consumer Cyclical	10.6%	9.4%
Financial Services	6.4%	14.3%
Communication Services	5.2%	2.7%
Real Estate	3.1%	-
Basic Materials	2.0%	5.0%
Utilities	1.2%	2.2%
Consumer Defensive	-	3.4%
Energy	-	5.9%

Return for Risk

NUMG vs. XMHQ — Risk / Return Rank

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

NUMG

NUMG Risk / Return Rank: 8
NUMG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8
NUMG Sortino Ratio Rank: 8
NUMG Omega Ratio Rank: 8
NUMG Calmar Ratio Rank: 8
NUMG Martin Ratio Rank: 8

XMHQ

XMHQ Risk / Return Rank: 35
XMHQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 32
XMHQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 34
XMHQ Omega Ratio Rank: 29
XMHQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 40
XMHQ Martin Ratio Rank: 39

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.

NUMG vs. XMHQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Nuveen ESG Mid-Cap Growth ETF (NUMG) 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.

	NUMG	XMHQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.15	0.97	-1.11
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.08	1.51	-1.59
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.99	1.17	-0.18
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.14	1.70	-1.84
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.35	4.96	-5.31

NUMG vs. XMHQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current NUMG Sharpe Ratio is -0.15, which is lower than the XMHQ Sharpe Ratio of 0.97. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of NUMG 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

NUMG vs. XMHQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum NUMG drawdown since its inception was -38.85%, smaller than the maximum XMHQ drawdown of -58.19%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for NUMG and XMHQ.

Drawdown Indicators

	NUMG	XMHQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-38.85%	-58.19%	+19.34%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-19.71%	-8.85%	-10.86%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.58%	-24.56%	-2.02%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-38.85%	-25.47%	-13.38%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-36.90%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-11.44%	-1.29%	-10.15%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-11.37%	-9.24%	-2.13%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.92%	3.03%	+4.89%

Volatility

NUMG vs. XMHQ - Volatility Comparison

Nuveen ESG Mid-Cap Growth ETF (NUMG) has a higher volatility of 4.70% compared to Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ) at 3.33%. This indicates that NUMG'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

	NUMG	XMHQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.70%	3.33%	+1.37%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.14%	11.31%	+3.83%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.79%	15.60%	+3.19%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.98%	20.66%	+2.32%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.83%	20.62%	+1.21%

NUMG vs. XMHQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

NUMG has a 0.30% expense ratio, which is higher than XMHQ's 0.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

NUMG vs. XMHQ - Dividend Comparison

NUMG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.01%, less than XMHQ's 0.57% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
NUMG Nuveen ESG Mid-Cap Growth ETF	0.01%	0.01%	0.06%	0.18%	0.18%	12.76%	3.82%	0.27%	5.14%	0.56%	0.00%	0.00%
XMHQ Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF	0.57%	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 NUMG and XMHQ in my portfolio?

NUMG and XMHQ 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.

Which is riskier, NUMG or XMHQ?

NUMG has higher volatility (4.70%) compared to XMHQ (3.33%). In terms of maximum drawdown, NUMG dropped -38.85% vs XMHQ's -58.19%.

Which ETF is better, NUMG or XMHQ?

On 5-year performance, XMHQ leads with 10.66% vs -0.44% for NUMG. On fees, XMHQ is cheaper at 0.25% per year. On volatility, XMHQ has been the lower-risk option at 3.33%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, NUMG or XMHQ?

Over the 5-year period, XMHQ has performed better with a 10.66% return vs -0.44%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, NUMG or XMHQ?

XMHQ is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.30% for NUMG.

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

XMHQ has the higher dividend yield at 0.57%, compared with 0.01% for NUMG.

What is the main difference between NUMG and XMHQ?

NUMG is categorized as Mid Cap Growth Equities, while XMHQ is Mid Cap Blend Equities. NUMG tracks MSCI TIAA ESG USA Mid Cap Growth, while XMHQ tracks S&P MidCap 400 Quality Index. They also come from different issuers: Nuveen and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.30% for NUMG and 0.25% for XMHQ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

XMHQ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.97 vs -0.15), 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.