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

Performance

RFG vs. FDIS - 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 Fidelity MSCI Consumer Discretionary Index ETF (FDIS). 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 23.21% return, which is significantly higher than FDIS's -1.40% return. Over the past 10 years, RFG has underperformed FDIS with an annualized return of 11.19%, while FDIS has yielded a comparatively higher 13.99% annualized return.


RFG

1D
0.77%
1M
4.83%
YTD
23.21%
6M
20.38%
1Y
35.48%
3Y*
20.42%
5Y*
8.35%
10Y*
11.19%

FDIS

1D
-1.74%
1M
-1.89%
YTD
-1.40%
6M
-3.81%
1Y
11.16%
3Y*
12.93%
5Y*
5.44%
10Y*
13.99%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

RFG vs. FDIS - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
RFG
Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF
23.21%8.80%17.80%16.42%-21.70%13.81%32.86%17.09%-13.98%20.46%
FDIS
Fidelity MSCI Consumer Discretionary Index ETF
-1.40%5.67%24.43%40.48%-35.23%24.25%49.50%27.44%-0.88%22.96%

Correlation

The correlation between RFG and FDIS is 0.65, 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

0.65

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

0.71

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

0.77

Correlation (10Y)
Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.79

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 24, 2013

0.80

The correlation between RFG and FDIS shifts across timeframes, from 0.65 (1 year) to 0.80 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

RFG vs. FDIS - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
RFG
FDIS

Industrials

33.1%
0.9%

Technology

22.8%
1.0%

Healthcare

19.0%
0.1%

Energy

4.9%

-

Consumer Defensive

4.8%
1.1%

Consumer Cyclical

4.0%
96.7%

Financial Services

3.7%
0.1%

Basic Materials

2.9%

-

Utilities

2.6%

-

Real Estate

1.8%
0.1%

Communication Services

0.5%
0.3%

Industrials

RFG
33.1%
FDIS
0.9%

Technology

RFG
22.8%
FDIS
1.0%

Healthcare

RFG
19.0%
FDIS
0.1%

Energy

RFG
4.9%
FDIS

-

Consumer Defensive

RFG
4.8%
FDIS
1.1%

Consumer Cyclical

RFG
4.0%
FDIS
96.7%

Financial Services

RFG
3.7%
FDIS
0.1%

Basic Materials

RFG
2.9%
FDIS

-

Utilities

RFG
2.6%
FDIS

-

Real Estate

RFG
1.8%
FDIS
0.1%

Communication Services

RFG
0.5%
FDIS
0.3%

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. FDIS — Risk / Return Rank

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

RFG
RFG Risk / Return Rank: 6262
Overall Rank
RFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5757
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 5656
Sortino Ratio Rank
RFG Omega Ratio Rank: 5353
Omega Ratio Rank
RFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 7171
Calmar Ratio Rank
RFG Martin Ratio Rank: 7575
Martin Ratio Rank

FDIS
FDIS Risk / Return Rank: 1818
Overall Rank
FDIS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1818
Sharpe Ratio Rank
FDIS Sortino Ratio Rank: 1818
Sortino Ratio Rank
FDIS Omega Ratio Rank: 1717
Omega Ratio Rank
FDIS Calmar Ratio Rank: 1717
Calmar Ratio Rank
FDIS Martin Ratio Rank: 1919
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. FDIS - 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 Fidelity MSCI Consumer Discretionary Index ETF (FDIS). 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.


RFGFDISDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+1.26

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+1.65

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.32

1.11

+0.21

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

3.43

0.72

+2.70

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

13.82

2.21

+11.60

RFG vs. FDIS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RFG Sharpe Ratio is 1.86, which is higher than the FDIS Sharpe Ratio of 0.60. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RFG and FDIS, 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...

Drawdowns

RFG vs. FDIS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RFG drawdown since its inception was -51.93%, which is greater than FDIS's maximum drawdown of -39.16%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RFG and FDIS.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


RFGFDISDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-51.93%

-39.16%

-12.77%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.41%

-15.50%

+5.09%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-26.71%

-27.43%

+0.72%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-35.16%

-39.16%

+4.00%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-42.92%

-39.16%

-3.76%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-5.93%

+5.93%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.95%

-7.49%

-1.46%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.57%

5.05%

-2.48%

Volatility

RFG vs. FDIS - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF (RFG) and Fidelity MSCI Consumer Discretionary Index ETF (FDIS) have volatilities of 6.28% and 6.33%, 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


RFGFDISDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.28%

6.33%

-0.05%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

15.49%

13.87%

+1.62%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

19.18%

18.76%

+0.42%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

22.91%

23.98%

-1.07%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

23.10%

22.36%

+0.74%

RFG vs. FDIS - Expense Ratio Comparison

RFG has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than FDIS's 0.08% expense ratio.


Dividends

RFG vs. FDIS - Dividend Comparison

RFG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.32%, less than FDIS's 0.74% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
FDIS
Fidelity MSCI Consumer Discretionary Index ETF
0.74%0.75%0.69%0.78%1.00%0.58%0.59%1.14%1.29%1.00%1.62%1.25%
RFG
Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF
0.32%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


RFG and FDIS have a correlation of 0.65, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

FDIS has higher volatility (6.33%) compared to RFG (6.28%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RFG dropped -51.93% vs FDIS's -39.16%.

On 10-year performance, FDIS leads with 13.99% vs 11.19% for RFG. On fees, FDIS is cheaper at 0.08% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, FDIS has performed better with a 13.99% return vs 11.19%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

FDIS is cheaper with a 0.08% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for RFG.

FDIS has the higher dividend yield at 0.74%, compared with 0.32% for RFG.

RFG is categorized as Small Cap Growth Equities, while FDIS is Consumer Discretionary Equities. RFG tracks S&P Mid Cap 400 Pure Growth, while FDIS tracks MSCI USA IMI Consumer Discretionary 25/50 Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Fidelity. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for RFG and 0.08% for FDIS.

RFG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.86 vs 0.60), 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 FDIS

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