RFG vs. GRPZ

Last updated Jul 17, 2026

RFG (Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF) and GRPZ (Invesco S&P Smallcap 600 GARP ETF) are both Small Cap Growth Equities funds from Invesco - RFG tracks the S&P Mid Cap 400 Pure Growth while GRPZ tracks the S&P SmallCap 600 GARP Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, RFG returned 22.10% vs 30.97% for GRPZ. A 0.79 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. Both charge a 0.35% expense ratio.

Performance

RFG vs. GRPZ - 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 Invesco S&P Smallcap 600 GARP ETF (GRPZ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RFG achieves a 14.62% return, which is significantly lower than GRPZ's 23.85% return.

RFG

• 1D: -1.34%
• 1M: -5.53%
• 6M: 5.79%
• YTD: 14.62%
• 1Y: 22.10%
• 3Y*: 15.10%
• 5Y*: 7.34%
• 10Y*: 9.62%

GRPZ

• 1D: 0.92%
• 1M: 7.28%
• 6M: 16.11%
• YTD: 23.85%
• 1Y: 30.97%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RFG vs. GRPZ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
RFG Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF	14.62%	8.80%	-3.13%
GRPZ Invesco S&P Smallcap 600 GARP ETF	23.85%	3.09%	4.27%

Correlation

The correlation between RFG and GRPZ is 0.71, 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	0.71
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 27, 2024	0.79

The correlation between RFG and GRPZ has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.71 to 0.79 - a consistent structural relationship.

RFG vs. GRPZ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RFG	GRPZ
Industrials	32.3%	16.1%
Technology	22.8%	7.6%
Healthcare	19.0%	15.8%
Energy	4.9%	12.2%
Consumer Defensive	4.8%	5.3%
Financial Services	3.6%	28.3%
Consumer Cyclical	3.0%	11.8%
Basic Materials	2.9%	2.3%
Utilities	2.6%	-
Real Estate	1.8%	-
Communication Services	0.5%	0.8%

Return for Risk

RFG vs. GRPZ — Risk / Return Rank

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

RFG

RFG Risk / Return Rank: 45
RFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 39
RFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
RFG Omega Ratio Rank: 36
RFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 53
RFG Martin Ratio Rank: 58

GRPZ

GRPZ Risk / Return Rank: 70
GRPZ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 69
GRPZ Sortino Ratio Rank: 75
GRPZ Omega Ratio Rank: 62
GRPZ Calmar Ratio Rank: 79
GRPZ Martin Ratio Rank: 66

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. GRPZ - 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 Invesco S&P Smallcap 600 GARP ETF (GRPZ). 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	GRPZ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.14	1.77	-0.64
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.70	2.70	-1.00
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.20	1.30	-0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.13	3.27	-1.13
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.99	9.39	-1.40

RFG vs. GRPZ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RFG Sharpe Ratio is 1.14, which is lower than the GRPZ Sharpe Ratio of 1.77. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RFG and GRPZ, 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. GRPZ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RFG drawdown since its inception was -51.93%, which is greater than GRPZ's maximum drawdown of -27.87%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RFG and GRPZ.

Drawdown Indicators

	RFG	GRPZ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-51.93%	-27.87%	-24.06%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.41%	-9.53%	-0.88%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.71%	—	—
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	-6.98%	0.00%	-6.98%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.93%	-6.68%	-2.25%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.77%	3.31%	-0.54%

Volatility

RFG vs. GRPZ - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF (RFG) has a higher volatility of 5.32% compared to Invesco S&P Smallcap 600 GARP ETF (GRPZ) at 3.78%. This indicates that RFG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than GRPZ based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RFG	GRPZ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.32%	3.78%	+1.54%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.86%	11.77%	+4.09%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.55%	17.53%	+2.02%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.96%	20.87%	+2.09%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.06%	20.87%	+2.19%

RFG vs. GRPZ - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both RFG and GRPZ have an expense ratio of 0.35%.

Dividends

RFG vs. GRPZ - Dividend Comparison

RFG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.15%, less than GRPZ's 0.87% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
GRPZ Invesco S&P Smallcap 600 GARP ETF	0.87%	0.97%	0.73%	0.00%	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	0.15%	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 GRPZ in my portfolio?

RFG and GRPZ have a correlation of 0.71, 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 GRPZ?

RFG has higher volatility (5.32%) compared to GRPZ (3.78%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RFG dropped -51.93% vs GRPZ's -27.87%.

Which ETF is better, RFG or GRPZ?

On 1-year performance, GRPZ leads with 30.97% vs 22.10% for RFG. Both ETFs have the same 0.35% expense ratio. On volatility, GRPZ has been the lower-risk option at 3.78%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RFG or GRPZ?

Over the 1-year period, GRPZ has performed better with a 30.97% return vs 22.10%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RFG or GRPZ?

RFG and GRPZ have the same expense ratio: 0.35% per year.

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

GRPZ has the higher dividend yield at 0.87%, compared with 0.15% for RFG.

What is the main difference between RFG and GRPZ?

RFG tracks S&P Mid Cap 400 Pure Growth, while GRPZ tracks S&P SmallCap 600 GARP Index.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

GRPZ currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.77 vs 1.14), 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.