PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
QVMS vs. XMHQ
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

QVMS vs. XMHQ - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P SmallCap 600 QVM Multi-factor ETF (QVMS) and Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, QVMS achieves a 16.84% return, which is significantly higher than XMHQ's 8.95% return.


QVMS

1D
1.26%
1M
2.06%
YTD
16.84%
6M
16.99%
1Y
34.90%
3Y*
15.26%
5Y*
10Y*

XMHQ

1D
0.23%
1M
3.20%
YTD
8.95%
6M
9.84%
1Y
15.30%
3Y*
16.36%
5Y*
9.42%
10Y*
12.78%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

QVMS vs. XMHQ - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021
QVMS
Invesco S&P SmallCap 600 QVM Multi-factor ETF
16.84%5.56%9.50%16.89%-14.61%4.45%
XMHQ
Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF
8.95%4.71%16.79%29.51%-12.42%4.40%

Correlation

The correlation between QVMS and XMHQ is 0.88, 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

0.88

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

0.89

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

0.91

The correlation between QVMS and XMHQ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

QVMS vs. XMHQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
QVMS
XMHQ

Financial Services

18.3%
15.1%

Industrials

16.7%
25.8%

Technology

15.5%
12.1%

Consumer Cyclical

13.2%
9.7%

Healthcare

10.8%
19.7%

Energy

7.5%
6.7%

Real Estate

7.1%

-

Basic Materials

4.5%
4.8%

Consumer Defensive

2.6%
3.9%

Utilities

2.1%
2.2%

Communication Services

1.7%
2.7%

Financial Services

QVMS
18.3%
XMHQ
15.1%

Industrials

QVMS
16.7%
XMHQ
25.8%

Technology

QVMS
15.5%
XMHQ
12.1%

Consumer Cyclical

QVMS
13.2%
XMHQ
9.7%

Healthcare

QVMS
10.8%
XMHQ
19.7%

Energy

QVMS
7.5%
XMHQ
6.7%

Real Estate

QVMS
7.1%
XMHQ

-

Basic Materials

QVMS
4.5%
XMHQ
4.8%

Consumer Defensive

QVMS
2.6%
XMHQ
3.9%

Utilities

QVMS
2.1%
XMHQ
2.2%

Communication Services

QVMS
1.7%
XMHQ
2.7%

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

QVMS vs. XMHQ — Risk / Return Rank

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

QVMS
QVMS Risk / Return Rank: 6464
Overall Rank
QVMS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5858
Sharpe Ratio Rank
QVMS Sortino Ratio Rank: 6161
Sortino Ratio Rank
QVMS Omega Ratio Rank: 5555
Omega Ratio Rank
QVMS Calmar Ratio Rank: 7575
Calmar Ratio Rank
QVMS Martin Ratio Rank: 6969
Martin Ratio Rank

XMHQ
XMHQ Risk / Return Rank: 3030
Overall Rank
XMHQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 2828
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XMHQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 2929
Sortino Ratio Rank
XMHQ Omega Ratio Rank: 2626
Omega Ratio Rank
XMHQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 3434
Calmar Ratio Rank
XMHQ Martin Ratio Rank: 3333
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.

QVMS vs. XMHQ - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P SmallCap 600 QVM Multi-factor ETF (QVMS) and Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ). 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.


QVMSXMHQDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

1.99

0.99

+1.00

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

2.90

1.56

+1.34

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.34

1.18

+0.17

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

3.87

1.72

+2.15

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

13.10

5.04

+8.05

QVMS vs. XMHQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current QVMS Sharpe Ratio is 1.99, which is higher than the XMHQ Sharpe Ratio of 0.99. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of QVMS and XMHQ, 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


QVMSXMHQDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.99

0.99

+1.00

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.46

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.62

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.34

0.45

-0.11

Drawdowns

QVMS vs. XMHQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum QVMS drawdown since its inception was -28.05%, smaller than the maximum XMHQ drawdown of -58.19%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for QVMS and XMHQ.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


QVMSXMHQDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-28.05%

-58.19%

+30.14%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-8.78%

-8.85%

+0.07%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-28.05%

-24.56%

-3.49%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-25.47%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-36.90%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-0.37%

+0.37%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-9.11%

-9.29%

+0.18%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.60%

3.02%

-0.42%

Volatility

QVMS vs. XMHQ - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P SmallCap 600 QVM Multi-factor ETF (QVMS) and Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ) have volatilities of 4.84% and 4.70%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


QVMSXMHQDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

4.84%

4.70%

+0.14%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

12.04%

11.12%

+0.92%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

17.62%

15.46%

+2.16%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

21.26%

20.74%

+0.52%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

21.26%

20.71%

+0.55%

QVMS vs. XMHQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

QVMS has a 0.15% expense ratio, which is lower than XMHQ's 0.25% 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

QVMS vs. XMHQ - Dividend Comparison

QVMS's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.12%, more than XMHQ's 0.55% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
QVMS
Invesco S&P SmallCap 600 QVM Multi-factor ETF
1.12%1.10%1.53%1.51%1.58%0.64%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
XMHQ
Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF
0.55%0.64%5.20%0.73%1.72%1.00%1.12%1.22%1.59%1.06%1.63%1.34%

Frequently Asked Questions


QVMS and XMHQ have a correlation of 0.88, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

QVMS has higher volatility (4.84%) compared to XMHQ (4.70%). In terms of maximum drawdown, QVMS dropped -28.05% vs XMHQ's -58.19%.

On 3-year performance, XMHQ leads with 16.36% vs 15.26% for QVMS. On fees, QVMS is cheaper at 0.15% per year. On volatility, XMHQ has been the lower-risk option at 4.70%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 3-year period, XMHQ has performed better with a 16.36% return vs 15.26%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

QVMS is cheaper with a 0.15% expense ratio, compared with 0.25% for XMHQ.

QVMS has the higher dividend yield at 1.12%, compared with 0.55% for XMHQ.

QVMS is categorized as Multi-factor, while XMHQ is Mid Cap Blend Equities. QVMS tracks S&P Small Cap 600, while XMHQ tracks S&P MidCap 400 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.15% for QVMS and 0.25% for XMHQ.

QVMS currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.99 vs 0.99), 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 QVMS and XMHQ

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