PCSG vs. XMMO
PCSG (Polen 5Perspectives Small-Mid Growth ETF) and XMMO (Invesco S&P MidCap Momentum ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - PCSG is a Mid Cap Growth Equities fund actively managed by Polen, while XMMO is a Momentum fund tracking the S&P MidCap 400 Momentum Index. PCSG is actively managed, while XMMO is passively managed. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. PCSG charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for XMMO.
Performance
PCSG vs. XMMO - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
PCSG
- 1D
- -0.62%
- 1M
- -10.84%
- 6M
- —
- YTD
- —
- 1Y
- —
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
- ALL TIME*
- —
XMMO
- 1D
- 0.40%
- 1M
- -4.25%
- 6M
- 14.38%
- YTD
- 17.67%
- 1Y
- 24.82%
- 3Y*
- 26.00%
- 5Y*
- 14.85%
- 10Y*
- 18.73%
- ALL TIME*
- 12.39%
Liquidity Comparison
| Position | Avg. Volume Value (2W) | Avg. Volume Value (1M) | Avg. Volume Value (3M) |
|---|---|---|---|
| $3.95K | $14.31K | $29.15K | |
| $62.07M | $74.91M | $65.60M |
PCSG vs. XMMO - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | |
|---|---|
PCSG Polen 5Perspectives Small-Mid Growth ETF | -6.75% |
XMMO Invesco S&P MidCap Momentum ETF | -0.75% |
Correlation
The correlation between PCSG and XMMO is 0.89, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.
| Correlation | |
|---|---|
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 18, 2026 | 0.89 |
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
PCSG vs. XMMO — Risk / Return Rank
PCSG
Risk / return metrics aren't available yet — we need at least 12 months of trading data to calculate them.
XMMO
PCSG vs. XMMO - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Polen 5Perspectives Small-Mid Growth ETF (PCSG) and Invesco S&P MidCap Momentum ETF (XMMO). 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.
| PCSG | XMMO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | — | — | |
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | — | — | |
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | — | 1.22 | — |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | — | 2.46 | — |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | — | 8.70 | — |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
PCSG vs. XMMO - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum PCSG drawdown since its inception was -14.30%, smaller than the maximum XMMO drawdown of -55.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PCSG and XMMO.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| PCSG | XMMO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -14.30% | -55.37% | +41.07% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | — | -10.14% | — |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | — | -24.93% | — |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -27.91% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -36.74% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -13.11% | -6.57% | -6.54% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -5.04% | -9.42% | +4.38% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | — | 2.86% | — |
Volatility
PCSG vs. XMMO - Volatility Comparison
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| PCSG | XMMO | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | — | 6.97% | — |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | — | 17.65% | — |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 35.31% | 20.82% | +14.49% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 35.31% | 21.75% | +13.56% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 35.31% | 22.36% | +12.95% |
PCSG vs. XMMO - Expense Ratio Comparison
PCSG has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is higher than XMMO's 0.35% expense ratio.
Dividends
PCSG vs. XMMO - Dividend Comparison
PCSG has not paid dividends to shareholders, while XMMO's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.59%.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PCSG Polen 5Perspectives Small-Mid Growth ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
XMMO Invesco S&P MidCap Momentum ETF | 0.59% | 0.78% | 0.34% | 0.80% | 1.43% | 0.41% | 0.61% | 0.60% | 0.19% | 0.21% | 0.22% | 0.64% |
Frequently Asked Questions
PCSG and XMMO have a correlation of 0.89, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
On fees, XMMO is cheaper at 0.35% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
XMMO is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for PCSG.
XMMO has the higher dividend yield at 0.59%, compared with 0.00% for PCSG.
PCSG is categorized as Mid Cap Growth Equities, while XMMO is Momentum. They also come from different issuers: Polen and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for PCSG and 0.35% for XMMO.
Find the right allocation for PCSG and XMMO
Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.
Open Portfolio Optimizer