RFG vs. USL

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RFG (Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF) and USL (United States 12 Month Oil 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 USL is a Oil & Gas fund tracking the 12 Month Light Sweet Crude Oil. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, RFG returned 10.49%/yr vs 10.91%/yr for USL. At a 0.29 correlation, their price movements are largely independent. RFG charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.88%/yr for USL.

Performance

RFG vs. USL - 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 12 Month Oil Fund LP (USL). 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 lower than USL's 63.07% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with RFG having a 10.49% annualized return and USL not far ahead at 10.91%.

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%

USL

• 1D: 1.55%
• 1M: -1.61%
• YTD: 63.07%
• 6M: 59.66%
• 1Y: 57.86%
• 3Y*: 18.42%
• 5Y*: 17.41%
• 10Y*: 10.91%

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

RFG vs. USL - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
RFG Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF	22.14%	8.80%	17.80%	16.42%	-21.70%	13.81%	32.86%	17.09%	-13.98%	20.46%
USL United States 12 Month Oil Fund LP	63.07%	-12.37%	8.30%	-1.11%	27.10%	62.48%	-25.23%	28.01%	-14.15%	2.55%

Correlation

The correlation between RFG and USL is -0.23, 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	-0.23
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.06
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.16
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.22
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 7, 2007	0.29

The correlation between RFG and USL shifts across timeframes, from -0.23 (1 year) to 0.29 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

RFG vs. USL - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RFG	USL
Industrials	31.3%	-
Technology	21.2%	-
Healthcare	19.4%	-
Consumer Cyclical	7.6%	-
Energy	5.4%	-
Financial Services	3.7%	4.5%
Basic Materials	3.3%	-
Consumer Defensive	3.1%	-
Utilities	2.4%	-
Real Estate	2.2%	-
Communication Services	0.6%	-

Return for Risk

RFG vs. USL — 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

USL

USL Risk / Return Rank: 56
USL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
USL Sortino Ratio Rank: 53
USL Omega Ratio Rank: 54
USL Calmar Ratio Rank: 69
USL Martin Ratio Rank: 43

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. USL - 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 12 Month Oil Fund LP (USL). 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	USL	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.79	2.04	-0.25
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.55	2.58	-0.03
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.34	-0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.18	3.47	-0.29
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.89	7.02	+5.88
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. USL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RFG Sharpe Ratio is 1.79, which is comparable to the USL Sharpe Ratio of 2.04. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RFG and USL, 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	USL	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.79	2.04	-0.25
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.38	0.58	-0.20
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.46	0.34	+0.12
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.43	0.01	+0.42

Drawdowns

RFG vs. USL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RFG drawdown since its inception was -51.93%, smaller than the maximum USL drawdown of -89.06%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RFG and USL.

Drawdown Indicators

	RFG	USL	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-51.93%	-89.06%	+37.13%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.41%	-16.76%	+6.35%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.71%	-23.33%	-3.38%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-35.16%	-33.82%	-1.34%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-42.92%	-66.02%	+23.10%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-38.16%	+38.16%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.97%	-61.46%	+52.49%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.56%	8.27%	-5.71%

Volatility

RFG vs. USL - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF (RFG) is 6.50%, while United States 12 Month Oil Fund LP (USL) has a volatility of 10.53%. This indicates that RFG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than USL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RFG	USL	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.50%	10.53%	-4.03%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.72%	23.33%	-8.61%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.53%	28.54%	-10.01%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.81%	30.08%	-7.27%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.05%	32.35%	-9.30%

RFG vs. USL - Expense Ratio Comparison

RFG has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than USL's 0.88% expense ratio.

Dividends

RFG vs. USL - Dividend Comparison

RFG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.31%, while USL 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%
USL United States 12 Month Oil 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

Can I hold both RFG and USL in my portfolio?

RFG and USL have a correlation of -0.23, 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 USL?

USL has higher volatility (10.53%) compared to RFG (6.50%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RFG dropped -51.93% vs USL's -89.06%.

Which ETF is better, RFG or USL?

On 10-year performance, USL leads with 10.91% vs 10.49% for RFG. On fees, RFG is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, RFG has been the lower-risk option at 6.50%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RFG or USL?

Over the 10-year period, USL has performed better with a 10.91% return vs 10.49%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RFG or USL?

RFG is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.88% for USL.

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

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

What is the main difference between RFG and USL?

RFG is categorized as Small Cap Growth Equities, while USL is Oil & Gas. RFG tracks S&P Mid Cap 400 Pure Growth, while USL tracks 12 Month Light Sweet Crude Oil. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Concierge Technologies. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for RFG and 0.88% for USL.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

USL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.04 vs 1.79), 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.