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

Performance

QVMM vs. XLG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P MidCap 400 QVM Multi-factor ETF (QVMM) 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, QVMM achieves a 14.47% return, which is significantly higher than XLG's 7.57% return.


QVMM

1D
0.09%
1M
3.49%
YTD
14.47%
6M
14.87%
1Y
26.39%
3Y*
16.65%
5Y*
10Y*

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)

QVMM vs. XLG - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
QVMM
Invesco S&P MidCap 400 QVM Multi-factor ETF
14.47%8.82%13.36%15.43%-13.06%6.04%
XLG
Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF
7.57%19.51%33.49%38.16%-24.29%13.96%

Correlation

The correlation between QVMM and XLG is 0.53, 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

0.53

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

0.58

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 1, 2021

0.69

The correlation between QVMM and XLG shifts across timeframes, from 0.53 (1 year) to 0.69 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

QVMM vs. XLG - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
QVMM
XLG

Industrials

26.5%
1.9%

Financial Services

15.2%
9.6%

Technology

13.8%
43.9%

Consumer Cyclical

10.0%
11.3%

Healthcare

8.7%
7.0%

Real Estate

7.6%

-

Energy

5.5%
2.7%

Basic Materials

4.7%
0.6%

Consumer Defensive

4.0%
5.8%

Utilities

3.3%

-

Communication Services

0.9%
17.1%

Industrials

QVMM
26.5%
XLG
1.9%

Financial Services

QVMM
15.2%
XLG
9.6%

Technology

QVMM
13.8%
XLG
43.9%

Consumer Cyclical

QVMM
10.0%
XLG
11.3%

Healthcare

QVMM
8.7%
XLG
7.0%

Real Estate

QVMM
7.6%
XLG

-

Energy

QVMM
5.5%
XLG
2.7%

Basic Materials

QVMM
4.7%
XLG
0.6%

Consumer Defensive

QVMM
4.0%
XLG
5.8%

Utilities

QVMM
3.3%
XLG

-

Communication Services

QVMM
0.9%
XLG
17.1%

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

QVMM vs. XLG — Risk / Return Rank

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

QVMM
QVMM Risk / Return Rank: 5656
Overall Rank
QVMM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5050
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QVMM Sortino Ratio Rank: 5252
Sortino Ratio Rank
QVMM Omega Ratio Rank: 4949
Omega Ratio Rank
QVMM Calmar Ratio Rank: 6464
Calmar Ratio Rank
QVMM Martin Ratio Rank: 6464
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.

QVMM vs. XLG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P MidCap 400 QVM Multi-factor ETF (QVMM) 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.


QVMMXLGDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.41

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.38

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.31

1.38

-0.07

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.19

2.31

+0.88

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

11.48

8.66

+2.82

QVMM vs. XLG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QVMM Sharpe Ratio is 1.74, which is comparable to the XLG Sharpe Ratio of 2.15. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QVMM 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


QVMMXLGDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.74

2.15

-0.41

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.87

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.92

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.44

0.62

-0.18

Drawdowns

QVMM vs. XLG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QVMM drawdown since its inception was -24.00%, smaller than the maximum XLG drawdown of -52.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QVMM and XLG.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


QVMMXLGDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-24.00%

-52.39%

+28.39%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.30%

-12.41%

+4.11%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-24.00%

-20.70%

-3.30%

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

0.00%

-1.44%

+1.44%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-7.09%

-7.64%

+0.55%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.30%

3.30%

-1.00%

Volatility

QVMM vs. XLG - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P MidCap 400 QVM Multi-factor ETF (QVMM) has a higher volatility of 4.63% compared to Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF (XLG) at 3.19%. This indicates that QVMM'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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


QVMMXLGDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.63%

3.19%

+1.44%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.21%

9.80%

+1.41%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

15.28%

13.33%

+1.95%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

19.48%

18.68%

+0.80%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

19.48%

18.84%

+0.64%

QVMM vs. XLG - Expense Ratio Comparison

QVMM has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than XLG's 0.20% expense ratio. Despite the difference, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.


Dividends

QVMM vs. XLG - Dividend Comparison

QVMM's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.16%, more than XLG's 0.60% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
QVMM
Invesco S&P MidCap 400 QVM Multi-factor ETF
1.16%1.32%1.29%1.42%1.51%0.60%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
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


QVMM and XLG have a correlation of 0.53, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

QVMM has higher volatility (4.63%) compared to XLG (3.19%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QVMM dropped -24.00% vs XLG's -52.39%.

On 3-year performance, XLG leads with 24.46% vs 16.65% for QVMM. On fees, QVMM is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, XLG has been the lower-risk option at 3.19%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 3-year period, XLG has performed better with a 24.46% return vs 16.65%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

QVMM is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.20% for XLG.

QVMM has the higher dividend yield at 1.16%, compared with 0.60% for XLG.

QVMM is categorized as Multi-factor, while XLG is S&P 500. QVMM tracks S&P MidCap 400 Quality, Value & Momentum Top 90% Multi-Factor Index - Benchmark TR Gross, while XLG tracks S&P 500 Top 50 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for QVMM and 0.20% for XLG.

XLG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.15 vs 1.74), 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 QVMM 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