RFG vs. CAFG

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

RFG (Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF) and CAFG (Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF) are both Small Cap Growth Equities funds - RFG tracks the S&P Mid Cap 400 Pure Growth while CAFG tracks the Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders Index - Benchmark TR Gross. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, RFG returned 19.62%/yr vs 15.08%/yr for CAFG. Their correlation of 0.83 suggests significant overlap in exposure. RFG charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.59%/yr for CAFG.

Performance

RFG vs. CAFG - 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 Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (CAFG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RFG achieves a 20.79% return, which is significantly lower than CAFG's 27.99% return.

RFG

• 1D: -1.97%
• 1M: 2.77%
• YTD: 20.79%
• 6M: 18.16%
• 1Y: 33.12%
• 3Y*: 19.62%
• 5Y*: 7.71%
• 10Y*: 10.97%

CAFG

• 1D: -0.33%
• 1M: 2.98%
• YTD: 27.99%
• 6M: 25.79%
• 1Y: 34.79%
• 3Y*: 15.08%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RFG vs. CAFG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
RFG Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF	20.79%	8.80%	17.80%	13.90%
CAFG Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF	27.99%	0.17%	6.95%	21.26%

Correlation

The correlation between RFG and CAFG is 0.82, 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	0.82
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.83
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 2, 2023	0.83

The correlation between RFG and CAFG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.83 - a consistent structural relationship.

RFG vs. CAFG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RFG	CAFG
Industrials	33.1%	15.0%
Technology	22.8%	35.1%
Healthcare	19.0%	24.5%
Energy	4.9%	8.9%
Consumer Defensive	4.8%	2.7%
Consumer Cyclical	4.0%	7.2%
Financial Services	3.7%	-
Basic Materials	2.9%	2.4%
Utilities	2.6%	1.1%
Real Estate	1.8%	-
Communication Services	0.5%	2.9%

Return for Risk

RFG vs. CAFG — Risk / Return Rank

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

RFG

RFG Risk / Return Rank: 60
RFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
RFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 54
RFG Omega Ratio Rank: 50
RFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
RFG Martin Ratio Rank: 73

CAFG

CAFG Risk / Return Rank: 71
CAFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
CAFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
CAFG Omega Ratio Rank: 60
CAFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
CAFG Martin Ratio Rank: 79

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. CAFG - 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 Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (CAFG). 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.

	RFG	CAFG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.73	1.99	-0.26
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.44	2.82	-0.38
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.34	-0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.20	4.30	-1.10
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.88	14.15	-1.27

RFG vs. CAFG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RFG Sharpe Ratio is 1.73, which is comparable to the CAFG Sharpe Ratio of 1.99. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RFG and CAFG, 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

RFG vs. CAFG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RFG drawdown since its inception was -51.93%, which is greater than CAFG's maximum drawdown of -23.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RFG and CAFG.

Drawdown Indicators

	RFG	CAFG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-51.93%	-23.66%	-28.27%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.41%	-8.13%	-2.28%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.71%	-23.66%	-3.05%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-35.16%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-42.92%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.97%	-0.49%	-1.48%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.95%	-5.45%	-3.50%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.58%	2.46%	+0.12%

Volatility

RFG vs. CAFG - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF (RFG) has a higher volatility of 6.67% compared to Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF (CAFG) at 5.07%. This indicates that RFG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than CAFG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RFG	CAFG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.67%	5.07%	+1.60%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.63%	13.16%	+2.47%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.25%	17.61%	+1.64%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.93%	19.54%	+3.39%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.07%	19.54%	+3.53%

RFG vs. CAFG - Expense Ratio Comparison

RFG has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than CAFG's 0.59% expense ratio.

Dividends

RFG vs. CAFG - Dividend Comparison

RFG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.14%, less than CAFG's 0.31% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CAFG Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders ETF	0.31%	0.35%	0.36%	0.39%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RFG Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF	0.14%	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

Can I hold both RFG and CAFG in my portfolio?

RFG and CAFG have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RFG or CAFG?

RFG has higher volatility (6.67%) compared to CAFG (5.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RFG dropped -51.93% vs CAFG's -23.66%.

Which ETF is better, RFG or CAFG?

On 3-year performance, RFG leads with 19.62% vs 15.08% for CAFG. On fees, RFG is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, CAFG has been the lower-risk option at 5.07%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RFG or CAFG?

Over the 3-year period, RFG has performed better with a 19.62% return vs 15.08%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RFG or CAFG?

RFG is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.59% for CAFG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RFG or CAFG?

CAFG has the higher dividend yield at 0.31%, compared with 0.14% for RFG.

What is the main difference between RFG and CAFG?

RFG tracks S&P Mid Cap 400 Pure Growth, while CAFG tracks Pacer US Small Cap Cash Cows Growth Leaders Index - Benchmark TR Gross. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Pacer. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for RFG and 0.59% for CAFG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CAFG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.99 vs 1.73), 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.