OMFS vs. SMIG

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

OMFS (Invesco Russell 2000 Dynamic Multifactor ETF) and SMIG (Bahl & Gaynor Small/Mid Cap Income Growth ETF) are both Small Cap Value Equities funds. OMFS is passively managed, while SMIG is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, OMFS returned 15.98%/yr vs 13.57%/yr for SMIG. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. OMFS charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for SMIG.

Performance

OMFS vs. SMIG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Russell 2000 Dynamic Multifactor ETF (OMFS) and Bahl & Gaynor Small/Mid Cap Income Growth ETF (SMIG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, OMFS achieves a 18.54% return, which is significantly higher than SMIG's 12.95% return.

OMFS

• 1D: -0.44%
• 1M: 4.03%
• YTD: 18.54%
• 6M: 16.21%
• 1Y: 33.25%
• 3Y*: 15.98%
• 5Y*: 6.12%
• 10Y*: —

SMIG

• 1D: -0.15%
• 1M: 1.34%
• YTD: 12.95%
• 6M: 11.75%
• 1Y: 14.54%
• 3Y*: 13.57%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

OMFS vs. SMIG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
OMFS Invesco Russell 2000 Dynamic Multifactor ETF	18.54%	13.34%	3.98%	15.12%	-17.29%	5.26%
SMIG Bahl & Gaynor Small/Mid Cap Income Growth ETF	12.95%	0.78%	17.63%	13.62%	-11.83%	5.23%

Correlation

The correlation between OMFS and SMIG 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	0.82
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 26, 2021	0.86

The correlation between OMFS and SMIG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.76 to 0.86 - a consistent structural relationship.

OMFS vs. SMIG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	OMFS	SMIG
Financial Services	24.3%	21.1%
Technology	15.3%	10.7%
Industrials	14.9%	18.2%
Healthcare	13.7%	2.7%
Real Estate	11.5%	9.8%
Consumer Cyclical	8.6%	13.5%
Consumer Defensive	3.7%	1.9%
Energy	3.4%	10.4%
Basic Materials	2.7%	2.0%
Utilities	1.1%	9.8%
Communication Services	0.9%	2.2%

Return for Risk

OMFS vs. SMIG — Risk / Return Rank

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

OMFS

OMFS Risk / Return Rank: 64
OMFS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
OMFS Sortino Ratio Rank: 63
OMFS Omega Ratio Rank: 54
OMFS Calmar Ratio Rank: 74
OMFS Martin Ratio Rank: 70

SMIG

SMIG Risk / Return Rank: 36
SMIG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 37
SMIG Sortino Ratio Rank: 38
SMIG Omega Ratio Rank: 34
SMIG Calmar Ratio Rank: 37
SMIG Martin Ratio Rank: 32

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.

OMFS vs. SMIG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Russell 2000 Dynamic Multifactor ETF (OMFS) and Bahl & Gaynor Small/Mid Cap Income Growth ETF (SMIG). 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.

	OMFS	SMIG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.87	1.22	+0.65
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.72	1.86	+0.86
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.32	1.21	+0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.56	1.71	+1.85
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.26	4.45	+7.80

OMFS vs. SMIG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current OMFS Sharpe Ratio is 1.87, which is higher than the SMIG Sharpe Ratio of 1.22. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of OMFS and SMIG, 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

OMFS vs. SMIG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum OMFS drawdown since its inception was -42.50%, which is greater than SMIG's maximum drawdown of -19.65%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for OMFS and SMIG.

Drawdown Indicators

	OMFS	SMIG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-42.50%	-19.65%	-22.85%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-9.38%	-8.52%	-0.86%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-22.35%	-19.23%	-3.12%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-29.22%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.44%	-0.15%	-0.29%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.42%	-6.48%	-3.94%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.72%	3.27%	-0.55%

Volatility

OMFS vs. SMIG - Volatility Comparison

Invesco Russell 2000 Dynamic Multifactor ETF (OMFS) has a higher volatility of 5.05% compared to Bahl & Gaynor Small/Mid Cap Income Growth ETF (SMIG) at 3.60%. This indicates that OMFS's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than SMIG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	OMFS	SMIG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.05%	3.60%	+1.45%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.70%	8.48%	+4.22%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.97%	12.05%	+5.92%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.46%	16.16%	+5.30%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.27%	16.16%	+8.11%

OMFS vs. SMIG - Expense Ratio Comparison

OMFS has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is lower than SMIG's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

OMFS vs. SMIG - Dividend Comparison

OMFS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.09%, less than SMIG's 1.71% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
OMFS Invesco Russell 2000 Dynamic Multifactor ETF	1.09%	0.80%	1.87%	1.27%	1.84%	0.66%	1.07%	1.29%	1.50%	0.34%
SMIG Bahl & Gaynor Small/Mid Cap Income Growth ETF	1.71%	1.82%	1.75%	1.91%	2.00%	0.50%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both OMFS and SMIG in my portfolio?

OMFS and SMIG 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, OMFS or SMIG?

OMFS has higher volatility (5.05%) compared to SMIG (3.60%). In terms of maximum drawdown, OMFS dropped -42.50% vs SMIG's -19.65%.

Which ETF is better, OMFS or SMIG?

On 3-year performance, OMFS leads with 15.98% vs 13.57% for SMIG. On fees, OMFS is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, SMIG has been the lower-risk option at 3.60%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, OMFS or SMIG?

Over the 3-year period, OMFS has performed better with a 15.98% return vs 13.57%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, OMFS or SMIG?

OMFS is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for SMIG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, OMFS or SMIG?

SMIG has the higher dividend yield at 1.71%, compared with 1.09% for OMFS.

What is the main difference between OMFS and SMIG?

They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Bahl & Gaynor. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for OMFS and 0.60% for SMIG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

OMFS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.87 vs 1.22), 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.