PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo

Documentation

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

RFG vs. UGA

Last updated Jun 3, 2026

RFG (Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF) and UGA (United States Gasoline Fund LP) are both exchange-traded funds - RFG is a Small Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the S&P Mid Cap 400 Pure Growth, while UGA is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the Front Month Unleaded Gasoline. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, RFG returned 10.42%/yr vs 14.46%/yr for UGA. At a 0.25 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. RFG charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for UGA.

Performance

RFG vs. UGA - 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 United States Gasoline Fund LP (UGA). 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 lower than UGA's 75.83% return. Over the past 10 years, RFG has underperformed UGA with an annualized return of 10.42%, while UGA has yielded a comparatively higher 14.46% 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%

UGA

1D
1.74%
1M
-8.95%
YTD
75.83%
6M
64.53%
1Y
82.09%
3Y*
22.29%
5Y*
25.18%
10Y*
14.46%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

RFG vs. UGA - 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%
UGA
United States Gasoline Fund LP		75.83%-2.00%3.77%1.27%46.34%68.49%-24.88%41.25%-28.07%1.69%

Correlation

The correlation between RFG and UGA is -0.24, meaning they tend to move in opposite directions. This is especially valuable for risk management - when one declines, the other has historically tended to hold steady or rise.

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

-0.24

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

0.02

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

0.12

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

0.18

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Feb 29, 2008

0.25

The correlation between RFG and UGA shifts across timeframes, from -0.24 (1 year) to 0.25 (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

United States Gasoline Fund LP

Often compared with RFG:
RFG vs. RFVRFG vs. IVOGRFG vs. SPMDRFG vs. FRTYRFG vs. FDISRFG vs. VOTRFG vs. IMCG
Often compared with UGA:
UGA vs. URAUGA vs. FCGUGA vs. QQQUGA vs. VOOUGA vs. USOUGA vs. SPYUGA vs. FNGS

Return for Risk

RFG vs. UGA — 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
UGA
UGA Risk / Return Rank: 7171
Overall Rank
UGA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7070
Sharpe Ratio Rank
UGA Sortino Ratio Rank: 5858
Sortino Ratio Rank
UGA Omega Ratio Rank: 6161
Omega Ratio Rank
UGA Calmar Ratio Rank: 9191
Calmar Ratio Rank
UGA Martin Ratio Rank: 7474
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. UGA - 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 United States Gasoline Fund LP (UGA). 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.

RFGUGADifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

1.83

2.35

-0.52

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

2.60

2.78

-0.18

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.31

1.38

-0.07

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

3.26

5.82

-2.56

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

13.24

14.25

-1.01

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. UGA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RFG Sharpe Ratio is 1.83, which is comparable to the UGA Sharpe Ratio of 2.35. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RFG and UGA, 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

RFGUGADifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

1.83

2.35

-0.52

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.38

0.74

-0.35

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.45

0.39

+0.06

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.43

0.12

+0.31

Drawdowns

RFG vs. UGA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RFG drawdown since its inception was -51.93%, smaller than the maximum UGA drawdown of -86.59%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RFG and UGA.

Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators

RFGUGADifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-51.93%

-86.59%

+34.66%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.41%

-14.88%

+4.47%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-26.71%

-26.68%

-0.03%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-35.16%

-38.11%

+2.95%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-42.92%

-75.89%

+32.97%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

0.00%

-12.18%

+12.18%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.97%

-36.77%

+27.80%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.56%

6.08%

-3.52%

Volatility

RFG vs. UGA - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF (RFG) is 6.52%, while United States Gasoline Fund LP (UGA) has a volatility of 12.41%. This indicates that RFG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than UGA based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Loading charts...

Volatility by Period

RFGUGADifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.52%

12.41%

-5.89%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

14.76%

30.41%

-15.65%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

18.52%

35.21%

-16.69%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

22.81%

34.38%

-11.57%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

23.05%

37.27%

-14.22%

RFG vs. UGA - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

RFG vs. UGA - Dividend Comparison

RFG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.32%, while UGA has not paid dividends to shareholders.

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%
UGA
United States Gasoline Fund LP		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

RFG and UGA have a correlation of -0.24, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

UGA has higher volatility (12.41%) compared to RFG (6.52%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RFG dropped -51.93% vs UGA's -86.59%.

On 10-year performance, UGA leads with 14.46% vs 10.42% for RFG. On fees, RFG is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, RFG has been the lower-risk option at 6.52%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, UGA has performed better with a 14.46% return vs 10.42%. 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 0.75% for UGA.

RFG has the higher dividend yield at 0.32%, compared with 0.00% for UGA.

RFG is categorized as Small Cap Growth Equities, while UGA is Oil & Gas. RFG tracks S&P Mid Cap 400 Pure Growth, while UGA tracks Front Month Unleaded Gasoline. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Concierge Technologies. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for RFG and 0.75% for UGA.

UGA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.35 vs 1.83), 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 UGA

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