RFG vs. RSMC

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RFG (Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF) and RSMC (Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF) are both Small Cap Growth Equities funds. RFG is passively managed, while RSMC is actively managed. Over the past year, RFG returned 32.96% vs 10.70% for RSMC. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. RFG charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for RSMC.

Performance

RFG vs. RSMC - 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 Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF (RSMC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RFG achieves a 22.14% return, which is significantly higher than RSMC's 10.93% return.

RFG

• 1D: 0.61%
• 1M: 7.30%
• YTD: 22.14%
• 6M: 21.89%
• 1Y: 32.96%
• 3Y*: 20.57%
• 5Y*: 8.63%
• 10Y*: 10.49%

RSMC

• 1D: 0.59%
• 1M: 1.89%
• YTD: 10.93%
• 6M: 9.73%
• 1Y: 10.70%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RFG vs. RSMC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
RFG Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF	22.14%	8.80%	-3.11%
RSMC Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF	10.93%	-1.02%	0.68%

Correlation

The correlation between RFG and RSMC is 0.83, 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	0.83
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 14, 2024	0.87

The correlation between RFG and RSMC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.83 to 0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

RFG vs. RSMC — Risk / Return Rank

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

RFG

RFG Risk / Return Rank: 57
RFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 52
RFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
RFG Omega Ratio Rank: 49
RFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 65
RFG Martin Ratio Rank: 69

RSMC

RSMC Risk / Return Rank: 20
RSMC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 18
RSMC Sortino Ratio Rank: 19
RSMC Omega Ratio Rank: 18
RSMC Calmar Ratio Rank: 23
RSMC Martin Ratio Rank: 24

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. RSMC - 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 Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF (RSMC). 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.

	RFG	RSMC	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	1.79	0.63	+1.16
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	2.55	1.01	+1.55
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.12	+0.19
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.18	1.05	+2.14
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	12.89	3.14	+9.75
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. RSMC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RFG Sharpe Ratio is 1.79, which is higher than the RSMC Sharpe Ratio of 0.63. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RFG and RSMC, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	RFG	RSMC	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.79	0.63	+1.16
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.38	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.46	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.43	0.31	+0.12

Drawdowns

RFG vs. RSMC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RFG drawdown since its inception was -51.93%, which is greater than RSMC's maximum drawdown of -22.33%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RFG and RSMC.

Drawdown Indicators

	RFG	RSMC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-51.93%	-22.33%	-29.60%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.41%	-10.49%	+0.08%
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	0.00%	-1.96%	+1.96%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.97%	-5.27%	-3.70%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.56%	3.50%	-0.94%

Volatility

RFG vs. RSMC - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF (RFG) has a higher volatility of 6.50% compared to Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF (RSMC) at 4.86%. This indicates that RFG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RSMC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RFG	RSMC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.50%	4.86%	+1.64%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.72%	12.41%	+2.31%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.53%	17.16%	+1.37%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.81%	20.40%	+2.41%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.05%	20.40%	+2.65%

RFG vs. RSMC - Expense Ratio Comparison

RFG has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than RSMC's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

RFG vs. RSMC - Dividend Comparison

RFG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.31%, while RSMC has not paid dividends to shareholders.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
RFG Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF	0.31%	0.43%	0.38%	0.99%	0.78%	0.05%	0.27%	0.64%	0.76%	0.66%	0.35%	0.61%
RSMC Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RFG and RSMC in my portfolio?

RFG and RSMC have a correlation of 0.83, 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 RSMC?

RFG has higher volatility (6.50%) compared to RSMC (4.86%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RFG dropped -51.93% vs RSMC's -22.33%.

Which ETF is better, RFG or RSMC?

On 1-year performance, RFG leads with 32.96% vs 10.70% for RSMC. On fees, RFG is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, RSMC has been the lower-risk option at 4.86%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RFG or RSMC?

Over the 1-year period, RFG has performed better with a 32.96% return vs 10.70%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RFG or RSMC?

RFG is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for RSMC.

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

RFG has the higher dividend yield at 0.31%, compared with 0.00% for RSMC.

What is the main difference between RFG and RSMC?

They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Rockefeller. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for RFG and 0.75% for RSMC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RFG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.79 vs 0.63), 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.