PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
RFG vs. BBMC
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

RFG vs. BBMC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF (RFG) and JPMorgan BetaBuilders U.S. Mid Cap Equity ETF (BBMC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RFG achieves a 22.14% return, which is significantly higher than BBMC's 16.66% return.


RFG

1D
0.61%
1M
7.30%
YTD
22.14%
6M
21.89%
1Y
32.96%
3Y*
20.57%
5Y*
8.63%
10Y*
10.49%

BBMC

1D
-0.12%
1M
4.96%
YTD
16.66%
6M
16.84%
1Y
33.04%
3Y*
19.56%
5Y*
8.32%
10Y*
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

RFG vs. BBMC - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020
RFG
Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF
22.14%8.80%17.80%16.42%-21.70%13.81%70.14%
BBMC
JPMorgan BetaBuilders U.S. Mid Cap Equity ETF
16.66%12.24%15.15%18.37%-19.77%17.64%61.98%

Correlation

The correlation between RFG and BBMC is 0.92, 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

0.92

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

0.94

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

0.95

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Apr 16, 2020

0.95

The correlation between RFG and BBMC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.92 to 0.95 - a consistent structural relationship.

RFG vs. BBMC - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
RFG
BBMC

Industrials

31.3%
18.6%

Technology

21.2%
21.6%

Healthcare

19.4%
10.0%

Consumer Cyclical

7.6%
11.5%

Energy

5.4%
3.1%

Financial Services

3.7%
10.6%

Basic Materials

3.3%
4.9%

Consumer Defensive

3.1%
3.5%

Utilities

2.4%
2.6%

Real Estate

2.2%
6.3%

Communication Services

0.6%
2.4%

Industrials

RFG
31.3%
BBMC
18.6%

Technology

RFG
21.2%
BBMC
21.6%

Healthcare

RFG
19.4%
BBMC
10.0%

Consumer Cyclical

RFG
7.6%
BBMC
11.5%

Energy

RFG
5.4%
BBMC
3.1%

Financial Services

RFG
3.7%
BBMC
10.6%

Basic Materials

RFG
3.3%
BBMC
4.9%

Consumer Defensive

RFG
3.1%
BBMC
3.5%

Utilities

RFG
2.4%
BBMC
2.6%

Real Estate

RFG
2.2%
BBMC
6.3%

Communication Services

RFG
0.6%
BBMC
2.4%

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

RFG vs. BBMC — Risk / Return Rank

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

RFG
RFG Risk / Return Rank: 5757
Overall Rank
RFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5252
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 5252
Sortino Ratio Rank
RFG Omega Ratio Rank: 4949
Omega Ratio Rank
RFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 6565
Calmar Ratio Rank
RFG Martin Ratio Rank: 6969
Martin Ratio Rank

BBMC
BBMC Risk / Return Rank: 6363
Overall Rank
BBMC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6060
Sharpe Ratio Rank
BBMC Sortino Ratio Rank: 6060
Sortino Ratio Rank
BBMC Omega Ratio Rank: 5656
Omega Ratio Rank
BBMC Calmar Ratio Rank: 6868
Calmar Ratio Rank
BBMC Martin Ratio Rank: 7171
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.

RFG vs. BBMC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF (RFG) and JPMorgan BetaBuilders U.S. Mid Cap Equity ETF (BBMC). 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.


RFGBBMCDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.25

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.30

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.31

1.35

-0.04

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.18

3.41

-0.22

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

12.89

13.41

-0.52

RFG vs. BBMC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RFG Sharpe Ratio is 1.79, which is comparable to the BBMC Sharpe Ratio of 2.04. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RFG and BBMC, 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


RFGBBMCDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.79

2.04

-0.25

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.38

0.41

-0.03

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.46

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.43

0.85

-0.42

Drawdowns

RFG vs. BBMC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RFG drawdown since its inception was -51.93%, which is greater than BBMC's maximum drawdown of -30.11%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RFG and BBMC.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


RFGBBMCDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-51.93%

-30.11%

-21.82%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.41%

-9.75%

-0.66%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-26.71%

-24.18%

-2.53%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-35.16%

-30.11%

-5.05%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-42.92%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-0.12%

+0.12%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.97%

-8.92%

-0.05%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.56%

2.47%

+0.09%

Volatility

RFG vs. BBMC - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF (RFG) has a higher volatility of 6.50% compared to JPMorgan BetaBuilders U.S. Mid Cap Equity ETF (BBMC) at 4.72%. This indicates that RFG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than BBMC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


RFGBBMCDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.50%

4.72%

+1.78%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

14.72%

12.14%

+2.58%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

18.53%

16.32%

+2.21%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

22.81%

20.59%

+2.22%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

23.05%

21.08%

+1.97%

RFG vs. BBMC - Expense Ratio Comparison

RFG has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than BBMC's 0.07% expense ratio.


Dividends

RFG vs. BBMC - Dividend Comparison

RFG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.31%, less than BBMC's 1.09% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
BBMC
JPMorgan BetaBuilders U.S. Mid Cap Equity ETF
1.09%1.25%1.31%1.36%1.48%0.87%0.69%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%0.00%
RFG
Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF
0.31%0.43%0.38%0.99%0.78%0.05%0.27%0.64%0.76%0.66%0.35%0.61%

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.92, RFG and BBMC move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

RFG has higher volatility (6.50%) compared to BBMC (4.72%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RFG dropped -51.93% vs BBMC's -30.11%.

On 5-year performance, RFG leads with 8.63% vs 8.32% for BBMC. On fees, BBMC is cheaper at 0.07% per year. On volatility, BBMC has been the lower-risk option at 4.72%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, RFG has performed better with a 8.63% return vs 8.32%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

BBMC is cheaper with a 0.07% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for RFG.

BBMC has the higher dividend yield at 1.09%, compared with 0.31% for RFG.

RFG tracks S&P Mid Cap 400 Pure Growth, while BBMC tracks Morningstar US Mid Cap Target Market Exposure Extended Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and JPMorgan. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for RFG and 0.07% for BBMC.

BBMC currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.04 vs 1.79), 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 RFG and BBMC

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