PBW vs. RFG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

PBW (Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF) and RFG (Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF) are both Small Cap Growth Equities funds from Invesco - PBW tracks the The WilderHill Clean Energy Index (AMEX) while RFG tracks the S&P Mid Cap 400 Pure Growth. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, PBW returned 11.06%/yr vs 10.49%/yr for RFG. A 0.73 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. PBW charges 0.61%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for RFG.

Performance

PBW vs. RFG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF (PBW) 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, PBW achieves a 48.64% return, which is significantly higher than RFG's 22.14% return. Over the past 10 years, PBW has outperformed RFG with an annualized return of 11.06%, while RFG has yielded a comparatively lower 10.49% annualized return.

PBW

• 1D: -3.49%
• 1M: 18.16%
• YTD: 48.64%
• 6M: 46.91%
• 1Y: 151.19%
• 3Y*: 8.19%
• 5Y*: -10.05%
• 10Y*: 11.06%

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)

PBW vs. RFG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
PBW Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF	48.64%	53.96%	-30.77%	-20.03%	-44.55%	-29.86%	204.82%	62.58%	-14.11%	39.92%
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 PBW and RFG is 0.67, 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	0.67
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.68
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.72
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.72
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 8, 2006	0.73

The correlation between PBW and RFG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.67 to 0.73 - a consistent structural relationship.

PBW vs. RFG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PBW	RFG
Industrials	34.3%	31.3%
Basic Materials	16.4%	3.3%
Technology	14.3%	21.2%
Consumer Cyclical	13.9%	7.6%
Energy	12.3%	5.4%
Utilities	6.3%	2.4%
Financial Services	1.4%	3.7%
Consumer Defensive	1.1%	3.1%
Communication Services	-	0.6%
Healthcare	-	19.4%
Real Estate	-	2.2%

Return for Risk

PBW vs. RFG — Risk / Return Rank

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

PBW

PBW Risk / Return Rank: 88
PBW Sharpe Ratio Rank: 94
PBW Sortino Ratio Rank: 86
PBW Omega Ratio Rank: 79
PBW Calmar Ratio Rank: 94
PBW Martin Ratio Rank: 88

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.

PBW vs. RFG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF (PBW) 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.

	PBW	RFG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.77	1.79	+1.98
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.92	2.55	+1.37
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.48	1.31	+0.17
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	7.16	3.18	+3.98
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	19.88	12.89	+6.98
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

PBW vs. RFG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PBW Sharpe Ratio is 3.77, which is higher than the RFG Sharpe Ratio of 1.79. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PBW 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

	PBW	RFG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.77	1.79	+1.98
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	-0.24	0.38	-0.62
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.29	0.46	-0.17
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	-0.03	0.43	-0.46

Drawdowns

PBW vs. RFG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PBW drawdown since its inception was -89.02%, which is greater than RFG's maximum drawdown of -51.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PBW and RFG.

Drawdown Indicators

	PBW	RFG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-89.02%	-51.93%	-37.09%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-21.24%	-10.41%	-10.83%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-68.04%	-26.71%	-41.33%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-84.50%	-35.16%	-49.34%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-89.02%	-42.92%	-46.10%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-62.54%	0.00%	-62.54%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-62.91%	-8.97%	-53.94%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.64%	2.56%	+5.08%

Volatility

PBW vs. RFG - Volatility Comparison

Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF (PBW) has a higher volatility of 13.35% compared to Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF (RFG) at 6.50%. This indicates that PBW's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RFG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PBW	RFG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	13.35%	6.50%	+6.85%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	28.20%	14.72%	+13.48%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	40.48%	18.53%	+21.95%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	42.91%	22.81%	+20.10%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	38.76%	23.05%	+15.71%

PBW vs. RFG - Expense Ratio Comparison

PBW has a 0.61% expense ratio, which is higher than RFG's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

PBW vs. RFG - Dividend Comparison

PBW's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.60%, more than RFG's 0.31% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
PBW Invesco WilderHill Clean Energy ETF	0.60%	0.79%	2.84%	3.68%	4.21%	1.71%	0.44%	1.45%	2.04%	1.28%	2.68%	1.53%
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 PBW and RFG in my portfolio?

PBW and RFG have a correlation of 0.67, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PBW or RFG?

PBW has higher volatility (13.35%) compared to RFG (6.50%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PBW dropped -89.02% vs RFG's -51.93%.

Which ETF is better, PBW or RFG?

On 10-year performance, PBW leads with 11.06% vs 10.49% for RFG. On fees, RFG is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, RFG has been the lower-risk option at 6.50%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PBW or RFG?

Over the 10-year period, PBW has performed better with a 11.06% return vs 10.49%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PBW or RFG?

RFG is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.61% for PBW.

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

PBW has the higher dividend yield at 0.60%, compared with 0.31% for RFG.

What is the main difference between PBW and RFG?

PBW tracks The WilderHill Clean Energy Index (AMEX), while RFG tracks S&P Mid Cap 400 Pure Growth. Their fees differ too: 0.61% for PBW and 0.35% for RFG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PBW currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.77 vs 1.79), 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.