PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
PFIG vs. XLG
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

PFIG vs. XLG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Fundamental Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (PFIG) and Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF (XLG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PFIG achieves a 0.19% return, which is significantly lower than XLG's 7.57% return. Over the past 10 years, PFIG has underperformed XLG with an annualized return of 2.44%, while XLG has yielded a comparatively higher 17.27% annualized return.


PFIG

1D
-0.19%
1M
0.10%
YTD
0.19%
6M
0.30%
1Y
4.83%
3Y*
5.21%
5Y*
1.35%
10Y*
2.44%

XLG

1D
-1.15%
1M
4.22%
YTD
7.57%
6M
7.32%
1Y
28.54%
3Y*
24.46%
5Y*
16.24%
10Y*
17.27%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

PFIG vs. XLG - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
PFIG
Invesco Fundamental Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF
0.19%7.87%3.13%6.93%-9.96%-1.43%7.72%9.69%-0.82%4.00%
XLG
Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF
7.57%19.51%33.49%38.16%-24.29%30.77%24.15%32.04%-3.59%23.04%

Correlation

The correlation between PFIG and XLG is 0.21, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.21

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.19

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.22

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.12

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 16, 2011

0.04

The correlation between PFIG and XLG shifts across timeframes, from 0.04 (all time) to 0.22 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

PFIG vs. XLG - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
PFIG
XLG

Financial Services

15.2%
9.6%

Industrials

11.1%
1.9%

Healthcare

10.9%
7.0%

Technology

10.7%
43.9%

Consumer Cyclical

7.7%
11.3%

Consumer Defensive

6.3%
5.8%

Energy

5.6%
2.7%

Utilities

4.5%

-

Communication Services

4.4%
17.1%

Real Estate

4.2%

-

Basic Materials

3.0%
0.6%

Financial Services

PFIG
15.2%
XLG
9.6%

Industrials

PFIG
11.1%
XLG
1.9%

Healthcare

PFIG
10.9%
XLG
7.0%

Technology

PFIG
10.7%
XLG
43.9%

Consumer Cyclical

PFIG
7.7%
XLG
11.3%

Consumer Defensive

PFIG
6.3%
XLG
5.8%

Energy

PFIG
5.6%
XLG
2.7%

Utilities

PFIG
4.5%
XLG

-

Communication Services

PFIG
4.4%
XLG
17.1%

Real Estate

PFIG
4.2%
XLG

-

Basic Materials

PFIG
3.0%
XLG
0.6%

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

PFIG vs. XLG — Risk / Return Rank

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

PFIG
PFIG Risk / Return Rank: 4848
Overall Rank
PFIG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4646
Sharpe Ratio Rank
PFIG Sortino Ratio Rank: 4949
Sortino Ratio Rank
PFIG Omega Ratio Rank: 4444
Omega Ratio Rank
PFIG Calmar Ratio Rank: 5050
Calmar Ratio Rank
PFIG Martin Ratio Rank: 4949
Martin Ratio Rank

XLG
XLG Risk / Return Rank: 5656
Overall Rank
XLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6363
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 6161
Sortino Ratio Rank
XLG Omega Ratio Rank: 6161
Omega Ratio Rank
XLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 4646
Calmar Ratio Rank
XLG Martin Ratio Rank: 5151
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

PFIG vs. XLG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Fundamental Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (PFIG) and Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF (XLG). 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.


PFIGXLGDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

1.58

2.15

-0.58

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

2.38

2.92

-0.54

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.28

1.38

-0.10

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

2.49

2.31

+0.18

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

8.20

8.66

-0.46

PFIG vs. XLG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PFIG Sharpe Ratio is 1.58, which is comparable to the XLG Sharpe Ratio of 2.15. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PFIG and XLG, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


PFIGXLGDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.58

2.15

-0.58

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.28

0.87

-0.60

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.47

0.92

-0.45

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.53

0.62

-0.10

Drawdowns

PFIG vs. XLG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PFIG drawdown since its inception was -15.58%, smaller than the maximum XLG drawdown of -52.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PFIG and XLG.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


PFIGXLGDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-15.58%

-52.39%

+36.81%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-1.94%

-12.41%

+10.47%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-3.52%

-20.70%

+17.18%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-15.58%

-28.02%

+12.44%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-15.58%

-30.46%

+14.88%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.98%

-1.44%

+0.46%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-2.46%

-7.64%

+5.18%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

0.59%

3.30%

-2.71%

Volatility

PFIG vs. XLG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco Fundamental Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF (PFIG) is 0.92%, while Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF (XLG) has a volatility of 3.19%. This indicates that PFIG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XLG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


PFIGXLGDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

0.92%

3.19%

-2.27%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

2.19%

9.80%

-7.61%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

3.07%

13.33%

-10.26%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

4.92%

18.68%

-13.76%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

5.24%

18.84%

-13.60%

PFIG vs. XLG - Expense Ratio Comparison

PFIG has a 0.22% expense ratio, which is higher than XLG's 0.20% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.


Dividends

PFIG vs. XLG - Dividend Comparison

PFIG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 4.40%, more than XLG's 0.60% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
PFIG
Invesco Fundamental Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF
4.40%4.15%4.12%3.54%2.58%3.34%2.81%2.92%2.88%2.54%2.58%2.57%
XLG
Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF
0.60%0.64%0.72%0.97%1.34%0.94%1.25%1.58%2.00%1.85%2.00%2.09%

Frequently Asked Questions


PFIG and XLG have a correlation of 0.21, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

XLG has higher volatility (3.19%) compared to PFIG (0.92%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PFIG dropped -15.58% vs XLG's -52.39%.

On 10-year performance, XLG leads with 17.27% vs 2.44% for PFIG. On fees, XLG is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, PFIG has been the lower-risk option at 0.92%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, XLG has performed better with a 17.27% return vs 2.44%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

XLG is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.22% for PFIG.

PFIG has the higher dividend yield at 4.40%, compared with 0.60% for XLG.

PFIG is categorized as Corporate Bonds, while XLG is S&P 500. PFIG tracks RAFI Bonds US Investment Grade 1-10 Index, while XLG tracks S&P 500 Top 50 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.22% for PFIG and 0.20% for XLG.

XLG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.15 vs 1.58), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for PFIG and XLG

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