QOWZ vs. XLG

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

QOWZ (Invesco Nasdaq Free Cash Flow Achievers ETF) and XLG (Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - QOWZ is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the Nasdaq US Free Cash Flow Achievers Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while XLG is a S&P 500 fund tracking the S&P 500 Top 50 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, QOWZ returned -5.02% vs 17.12% for XLG. Their correlation of 0.82 suggests significant overlap in exposure. QOWZ charges 0.39%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for XLG.

Performance

QOWZ vs. XLG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco Nasdaq Free Cash Flow Achievers ETF (QOWZ) and Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF (XLG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QOWZ achieves a -7.89% return, which is significantly lower than XLG's 0.84% return.

QOWZ

• 1D: -0.15%
• 1M: -2.96%
• YTD: -7.89%
• 6M: -9.21%
• 1Y: -5.02%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

XLG

• 1D: -0.27%
• 1M: -6.20%
• YTD: 0.84%
• 6M: -0.34%
• 1Y: 17.12%
• 3Y*: 21.54%
• 5Y*: 14.07%
• 10Y*: 17.01%

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

QOWZ vs. XLG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
QOWZ Invesco Nasdaq Free Cash Flow Achievers ETF	-7.89%	7.24%	33.16%	5.69%
XLG Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF	0.84%	19.51%	33.49%	3.59%

Correlation

The correlation between QOWZ and XLG is 0.74, 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	0.74
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 6, 2023	0.82

The correlation between QOWZ and XLG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.74 to 0.82 - a consistent structural relationship.

QOWZ vs. XLG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	QOWZ	XLG
Technology	60.1%	46.8%
Industrials	11.6%	1.9%
Healthcare	9.8%	7.0%
Communication Services	8.3%	16.0%
Financial Services	4.8%	9.0%
Consumer Cyclical	3.6%	11.2%
Consumer Defensive	1.9%	5.2%
Basic Materials	-	0.6%
Energy	-	2.4%
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

QOWZ vs. XLG — Risk / Return Rank

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

QOWZ

QOWZ Risk / Return Rank: 6
QOWZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6
QOWZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 6
QOWZ Omega Ratio Rank: 6
QOWZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 7
QOWZ Martin Ratio Rank: 6

XLG

XLG Risk / Return Rank: 36
XLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
XLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 37
XLG Omega Ratio Rank: 37
XLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 31
XLG Martin Ratio Rank: 36

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.

QOWZ vs. XLG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco Nasdaq Free Cash Flow Achievers ETF (QOWZ) 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.

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.

	QOWZ	XLG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	-0.32	1.24	-1.56
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	-0.34	1.73	-2.07
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	0.96	1.22	-0.26
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.28	1.39	-1.67
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	-0.71	4.86	-5.57

QOWZ vs. XLG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QOWZ Sharpe Ratio is -0.32, which is lower than the XLG Sharpe Ratio of 1.24. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QOWZ 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.

Drawdowns

QOWZ vs. XLG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QOWZ drawdown since its inception was -20.36%, smaller than the maximum XLG drawdown of -52.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QOWZ and XLG.

Drawdown Indicators

	QOWZ	XLG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-20.36%	-52.39%	+32.03%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-17.81%	-12.41%	-5.40%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-20.70%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-28.02%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-30.46%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-11.40%	-7.61%	-3.79%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.11%	-7.63%	+3.52%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	7.10%	3.53%	+3.57%

Volatility

QOWZ vs. XLG - Volatility Comparison

Invesco Nasdaq Free Cash Flow Achievers ETF (QOWZ) has a higher volatility of 6.20% compared to Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF (XLG) at 5.02%. This indicates that QOWZ's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XLG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	QOWZ	XLG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.20%	5.02%	+1.18%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.49%	10.68%	+1.81%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.51%	13.91%	+1.60%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.27%	18.79%	+0.48%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.27%	18.87%	+0.40%

QOWZ vs. XLG - Expense Ratio Comparison

QOWZ has a 0.39% expense ratio, which is higher than XLG's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

QOWZ vs. XLG - Dividend Comparison

QOWZ's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.27%, less than XLG's 0.67% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
QOWZ Invesco Nasdaq Free Cash Flow Achievers ETF	0.27%	0.28%	0.66%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
XLG Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF	0.67%	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

Can I hold both QOWZ and XLG in my portfolio?

QOWZ and XLG have a correlation of 0.74, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, QOWZ or XLG?

QOWZ has higher volatility (6.20%) compared to XLG (5.02%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QOWZ dropped -20.36% vs XLG's -52.39%.

Which ETF is better, QOWZ or XLG?

On 1-year performance, XLG leads with 17.12% vs -5.02% for QOWZ. On fees, XLG is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, XLG has been the lower-risk option at 5.02%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, QOWZ or XLG?

Over the 1-year period, XLG has performed better with a 17.12% return vs -5.02%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, QOWZ or XLG?

XLG is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for QOWZ.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, QOWZ or XLG?

XLG has the higher dividend yield at 0.67%, compared with 0.27% for QOWZ.

What is the main difference between QOWZ and XLG?

QOWZ is categorized as Large Cap Growth Equities, while XLG is S&P 500. QOWZ tracks Nasdaq US Free Cash Flow Achievers Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while XLG tracks S&P 500 Top 50 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.39% for QOWZ and 0.20% for XLG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

XLG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.24 vs -0.32), 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.