PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

Upgrade your plan
RFG vs. RIGS
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

RFG vs. RIGS

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

RFG (Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF) and RIGS (RiverFront Strategic Income Fund) are both exchange-traded funds - RFG is a Small Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the S&P Mid Cap 400 Pure Growth, while RIGS is a High Yield Bonds fund actively managed by SS&C. RFG is passively managed, while RIGS is actively managed. Over the past 10 years, RFG returned 10.42%/yr vs 3.18%/yr for RIGS. At a 0.30 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. RFG charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.48%/yr for RIGS.

Performance

RFG vs. RIGS - 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 RiverFront Strategic Income Fund (RIGS). 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 21.39% return, which is significantly higher than RIGS's 1.03% return. Over the past 10 years, RFG has outperformed RIGS with an annualized return of 10.42%, while RIGS has yielded a comparatively lower 3.18% annualized return.

RFG

1D
0.70%
1M
6.34%
YTD
21.39%
6M
22.20%
1Y
33.68%
3Y*
20.33%
5Y*
8.66%
10Y*
10.42%

RIGS

1D
0.05%
1M
0.22%
YTD
1.03%
6M
0.87%
1Y
4.73%
3Y*
4.72%
5Y*
2.16%
10Y*
3.18%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

RFG vs. RIGS - Yearly Performance Comparison

2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
RFG
Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF		21.39%8.80%17.80%16.42%-21.70%13.81%32.86%17.09%-13.98%20.46%
RIGS
RiverFront Strategic Income Fund		1.03%4.63%4.45%6.07%-5.72%1.93%3.58%7.60%-0.11%4.48%

Correlation

The correlation between RFG and RIGS is 0.17, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.17

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

0.22

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

0.28

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

0.29

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 10, 2013

0.30

The correlation between RFG and RIGS shifts across timeframes, from 0.17 (1 year) to 0.30 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.

Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF

RiverFront Strategic Income Fund

Often compared with RFG:
RFG vs. RFVRFG vs. IVOGRFG vs. SPMDRFG vs. FRTYRFG vs. FDISRFG vs. VOTRFG vs. IMCG
Often compared with RIGS:
RIGS vs. IYLDRIGS vs. BKHYRIGS vs. JPIERIGS vs. FXAIXRIGS vs. EIFAXRIGS vs. AOARIGS vs. RCTIX

Return for Risk

RFG vs. RIGS — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.
RFG
RFG Risk / Return Rank: 5858
Overall Rank
RFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5353
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 5353
Sortino Ratio Rank
RFG Omega Ratio Rank: 4949
Omega Ratio Rank
RFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 6464
Calmar Ratio Rank
RFG Martin Ratio Rank: 7070
Martin Ratio Rank
RIGS
RIGS Risk / Return Rank: 1818
Overall Rank
RIGS Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1717
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RIGS Sortino Ratio Rank: 1616
Sortino Ratio Rank
RIGS Omega Ratio Rank: 1717
Omega Ratio Rank
RIGS Calmar Ratio Rank: 2121
Calmar Ratio Rank
RIGS 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. RIGS - 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 RiverFront Strategic Income Fund (RIGS). 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.

RFGRIGSDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

1.83

0.51

+1.32

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

2.60

0.78

+1.82

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.31

1.11

+0.21

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

3.26

0.93

+2.33

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

13.24

2.23

+11.01

Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RFG vs. RIGS - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RFG Sharpe Ratio is 1.83, which is higher than the RIGS Sharpe Ratio of 0.51. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RFG and RIGS, 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

RFGRIGSDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.83

0.51

+1.32

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.38

0.29

+0.09

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.45

0.41

+0.04

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.43

0.46

-0.03

Drawdowns

RFG vs. RIGS - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RFG drawdown since its inception was -51.93%, which is greater than RIGS's maximum drawdown of -15.31%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RFG and RIGS.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

RFGRIGSDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-51.93%

-15.31%

-36.62%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.41%

-4.55%

-5.86%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-26.71%

-5.18%

-21.53%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-35.16%

-9.03%

-26.13%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-42.92%

-15.31%

-27.61%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-1.42%

+1.42%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.97%

-1.60%

-7.37%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.56%

1.90%

+0.66%

Volatility

RFG vs. RIGS - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF (RFG) has a higher volatility of 6.52% compared to RiverFront Strategic Income Fund (RIGS) at 1.30%. This indicates that RFG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RIGS based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

RFGRIGSDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.52%

1.30%

+5.22%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

14.76%

4.75%

+10.01%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

18.52%

9.34%

+9.18%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

22.81%

7.50%

+15.31%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

23.05%

7.75%

+15.30%

RFG vs. RIGS - Expense Ratio Comparison

RFG has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than RIGS's 0.48% expense ratio.

Dividends

RFG vs. RIGS - Dividend Comparison

RFG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.32%, less than RIGS's 4.87% yield.

PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
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%
RIGS
RiverFront Strategic Income Fund		4.87%4.84%4.49%3.48%2.71%2.47%3.77%3.87%4.54%4.45%4.46%3.61%

Frequently Asked Questions

RFG and RIGS have a correlation of 0.17, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

RFG has higher volatility (6.52%) compared to RIGS (1.30%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RFG dropped -51.93% vs RIGS's -15.31%.

On 10-year performance, RFG leads with 10.42% vs 3.18% for RIGS. On fees, RFG is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, RIGS has been the lower-risk option at 1.30%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, RFG has performed better with a 10.42% return vs 3.18%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

RFG is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.48% for RIGS.

RIGS has the higher dividend yield at 4.87%, compared with 0.32% for RFG.

RFG is categorized as Small Cap Growth Equities, while RIGS is High Yield Bonds. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and SS&C. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for RFG and 0.48% for RIGS.

RFG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.83 vs 0.51), 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 RIGS

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