PRF vs. RECS

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

PRF (Invesco RAFI US 1000 ETF) and RECS (Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - PRF is a Large Cap Value Equities fund tracking the RAFI Fundamental Select US 1000 Index, while RECS is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Beta Advantage Research Enhanced U.S. Equity Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, PRF returned 13.67%/yr vs 9.89%/yr for RECS. At a 0.44 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. PRF charges 0.34%/yr vs 0.15%/yr for RECS.

Performance

PRF vs. RECS - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco RAFI US 1000 ETF (PRF) and Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF (RECS). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, PRF achieves a 14.79% return, which is significantly higher than RECS's 6.61% return. Over the past 10 years, PRF has outperformed RECS with an annualized return of 13.67%, while RECS has yielded a comparatively lower 9.89% annualized return.

PRF

• 1D: -0.20%
• 1M: 4.19%
• YTD: 14.79%
• 6M: 15.01%
• 1Y: 32.80%
• 3Y*: 21.40%
• 5Y*: 12.43%
• 10Y*: 13.67%

RECS

• 1D: -0.75%
• 1M: 4.11%
• YTD: 6.61%
• 6M: 6.84%
• 1Y: 25.02%
• 3Y*: 21.66%
• 5Y*: 14.04%
• 10Y*: 9.89%

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

PRF vs. RECS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
PRF Invesco RAFI US 1000 ETF	14.79%	18.33%	16.73%	15.72%	-7.79%	31.12%	7.78%	27.42%	-8.71%	16.01%
RECS Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF	6.61%	19.30%	26.27%	23.19%	-14.39%	32.73%	15.35%	-0.93%	0.00%	0.00%

Correlation

The correlation between PRF and RECS is 0.83, indicating a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Combining them offers limited diversification - they tend to fall together during downturns.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.83
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.84
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.88
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.70
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 20, 2005	0.44

Over the past year, PRF and RECS have become more correlated (0.83) than their long-term average of 0.44, meaning their price movements have been converging.

PRF vs. RECS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	PRF	RECS
Technology	20.9%	33.6%
Financial Services	15.4%	13.2%
Healthcare	11.7%	9.9%
Communication Services	10.2%	11.0%
Industrials	9.2%	6.7%
Consumer Cyclical	9.1%	10.6%
Energy	8.2%	3.4%
Consumer Defensive	6.3%	5.0%
Basic Materials	3.4%	2.1%
Utilities	3.1%	2.2%
Real Estate	2.5%	2.3%

Return for Risk

PRF vs. RECS — Risk / Return Rank

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

PRF

PRF Risk / Return Rank: 89
PRF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 89
PRF Sortino Ratio Rank: 90
PRF Omega Ratio Rank: 88
PRF Calmar Ratio Rank: 87
PRF Martin Ratio Rank: 89

RECS

RECS Risk / Return Rank: 62
RECS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 63
RECS Sortino Ratio Rank: 63
RECS Omega Ratio Rank: 62
RECS Calmar Ratio Rank: 57
RECS Martin Ratio Rank: 66

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.

PRF vs. RECS - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco RAFI US 1000 ETF (PRF) and Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF (RECS). 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.

	PRF	RECS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	3.10	2.13	+0.97
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	4.33	2.97	+1.36
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.57	1.38	+0.19
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.00	2.85	+2.15
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	20.67	12.27	+8.40
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

PRF vs. RECS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current PRF Sharpe Ratio is 3.10, which is higher than the RECS Sharpe Ratio of 2.13. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of PRF and RECS, 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

	PRF	RECS	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	3.10	2.13	+0.97
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.82	0.86	-0.04
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.78	0.61	+0.16
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.48	0.38	+0.10

Drawdowns

PRF vs. RECS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum PRF drawdown since its inception was -60.35%, which is greater than RECS's maximum drawdown of -34.29%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for PRF and RECS.

Drawdown Indicators

	PRF	RECS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-60.35%	-34.29%	-26.06%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.59%	-8.82%	+2.23%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.82%	-18.60%	+2.78%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-19.72%	-22.08%	+2.36%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-38.16%	-34.29%	-3.87%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.20%	-0.93%	+0.73%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-6.93%	-1.28%	-5.65%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.59%	2.04%	-0.45%

Volatility

PRF vs. RECS - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco RAFI US 1000 ETF (PRF) is 2.64%, while Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF (RECS) has a volatility of 2.97%. This indicates that PRF experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RECS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	PRF	RECS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.64%	2.97%	-0.33%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.74%	8.84%	-1.10%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	10.63%	11.78%	-1.15%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.18%	16.38%	-1.20%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	17.67%	16.22%	+1.45%

PRF vs. RECS - Expense Ratio Comparison

PRF has a 0.34% expense ratio, which is higher than RECS's 0.15% expense ratio.

Dividends

PRF vs. RECS - Dividend Comparison

PRF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.38%, more than RECS's 1.04% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
PRF Invesco RAFI US 1000 ETF	1.38%	1.59%	1.78%	1.84%	2.01%	1.58%	1.97%	1.99%	2.25%	1.58%	2.17%	2.25%
RECS Columbia Research Enhanced Core ETF	1.04%	1.11%	1.09%	1.00%	1.41%	20.64%	1.09%	0.49%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both PRF and RECS in my portfolio?

PRF and RECS have a correlation of 0.83, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, PRF or RECS?

RECS has higher volatility (2.97%) compared to PRF (2.64%). In terms of maximum drawdown, PRF dropped -60.35% vs RECS's -34.29%.

Which ETF is better, PRF or RECS?

On 10-year performance, PRF leads with 13.67% vs 9.89% for RECS. On fees, RECS is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, PRF has been the lower-risk option at 2.64%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, PRF or RECS?

Over the 10-year period, PRF has performed better with a 13.67% return vs 9.89%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, PRF or RECS?

RECS is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.34% for PRF.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, PRF or RECS?

PRF has the higher dividend yield at 1.38%, compared with 1.04% for RECS.

What is the main difference between PRF and RECS?

PRF is categorized as Large Cap Value Equities, while RECS is Large Cap Growth Equities. PRF tracks RAFI Fundamental Select US 1000 Index, while RECS tracks Beta Advantage Research Enhanced U.S. Equity Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Ameriprise Financial. Their fees differ too: 0.34% for PRF and 0.15% for RECS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

PRF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (3.10 vs 2.13), 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.