RFG vs. FSGS

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

RFG (Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF) and FSGS (First Trust SMID Growth Strength ETF) are both Small Cap Growth Equities funds - RFG tracks the S&P Mid Cap 400 Pure Growth while FSGS tracks the SMID Growth Strength Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, RFG returned 7.71%/yr vs 2.54%/yr for FSGS. A 0.76 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RFG charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.60%/yr for FSGS.

Performance

RFG vs. FSGS - 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 First Trust SMID Growth Strength ETF (FSGS). 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 higher than FSGS's 1.66% 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%

FSGS

• 1D: -0.03%
• 1M: 0.28%
• YTD: 1.66%
• 6M: -0.28%
• 1Y: 6.33%
• 3Y*: 7.51%
• 5Y*: 2.54%
• 10Y*: —

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

RFG vs. FSGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
RFG Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF	20.79%	8.80%	17.80%	16.42%	-21.70%	13.81%	32.86%	17.09%	-13.98%	10.68%
FSGS First Trust SMID Growth Strength ETF	1.66%	2.41%	6.38%	15.98%	-13.17%	25.56%	10.26%	21.31%	-11.92%	10.39%

Correlation

The correlation between RFG and FSGS is 0.80, 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	0.80
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.83
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.83
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 22, 2017	0.76

The correlation between RFG and FSGS has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.76 to 0.83 - a consistent structural relationship.

RFG vs. FSGS - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RFG	FSGS
Industrials	33.1%	19.8%
Technology	22.8%	18.8%
Healthcare	19.0%	16.8%
Energy	4.9%	4.0%
Consumer Defensive	4.8%	5.9%
Consumer Cyclical	4.0%	7.9%
Financial Services	3.7%	19.8%
Basic Materials	2.9%	2.0%
Utilities	2.6%	-
Real Estate	1.8%	1.0%
Communication Services	0.5%	3.0%

Return for Risk

RFG vs. FSGS — 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

FSGS

FSGS Risk / Return Rank: 15
FSGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 15
FSGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 15
FSGS Omega Ratio Rank: 14
FSGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 16
FSGS Martin Ratio Rank: 16

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. FSGS - 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 First Trust SMID Growth Strength ETF (FSGS). 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	FSGS	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.73	0.42	+1.31
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.44	0.71	+1.73
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.30	1.08	+0.22
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.20	0.56	+2.64
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.88	1.58	+11.30

RFG vs. FSGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RFG Sharpe Ratio is 1.73, which is higher than the FSGS Sharpe Ratio of 0.42. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RFG and FSGS, 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. FSGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RFG drawdown since its inception was -51.93%, which is greater than FSGS's maximum drawdown of -43.26%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RFG and FSGS.

Drawdown Indicators

	RFG	FSGS	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-51.93%	-43.26%	-8.67%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.41%	-11.31%	+0.90%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.71%	-24.08%	-2.63%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-35.16%	-24.08%	-11.08%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-42.92%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.97%	-4.36%	+2.39%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.95%	-8.00%	-0.95%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.58%	4.02%	-1.44%

Volatility

RFG vs. FSGS - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF (RFG) has a higher volatility of 6.67% compared to First Trust SMID Growth Strength ETF (FSGS) at 3.55%. This indicates that RFG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FSGS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RFG	FSGS	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.67%	3.55%	+3.12%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.63%	10.87%	+4.76%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.25%	15.24%	+4.01%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.93%	20.08%	+2.85%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.07%	22.76%	+0.31%

RFG vs. FSGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

RFG has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than FSGS's 0.60% expense ratio.

Dividends

RFG vs. FSGS - Dividend Comparison

RFG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.14%, while FSGS has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FSGS First Trust SMID Growth Strength ETF	0.00%	0.00%	2.71%	2.29%	1.95%	1.35%	1.32%	1.77%	2.13%	1.15%	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 FSGS in my portfolio?

RFG and FSGS have a correlation of 0.80, 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 FSGS?

RFG has higher volatility (6.67%) compared to FSGS (3.55%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RFG dropped -51.93% vs FSGS's -43.26%.

Which ETF is better, RFG or FSGS?

On 5-year performance, RFG leads with 7.71% vs 2.54% for FSGS. On fees, RFG is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, FSGS has been the lower-risk option at 3.55%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RFG or FSGS?

Over the 5-year period, RFG has performed better with a 7.71% return vs 2.54%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RFG or FSGS?

RFG is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.60% for FSGS.

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

RFG has the higher dividend yield at 0.14%, compared with 0.00% for FSGS.

What is the main difference between RFG and FSGS?

RFG tracks S&P Mid Cap 400 Pure Growth, while FSGS tracks SMID Growth Strength Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for RFG and 0.60% for FSGS.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RFG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.73 vs 0.42), 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.