RFG vs. VOT
RFG (Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF) and VOT (Vanguard Mid-Cap Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RFG is a Small Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the S&P Mid Cap 400 Pure Growth, while VOT is a Mid Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the CRSP US Mid Cap Growth Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, RFG returned 10.97%/yr vs 12.50%/yr for VOT. Their correlation of 0.90 suggests significant overlap in exposure. RFG charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.05%/yr for VOT.
Performance
RFG vs. VOT - Performance Comparison
Loading charts...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, RFG achieves a 20.79% return, which is significantly higher than VOT's 7.86% return. Over the past 10 years, RFG has underperformed VOT with an annualized return of 10.97%, while VOT has yielded a comparatively higher 12.50% annualized return.
RFG
- 1D
- -1.97%
- 1M
- 2.77%
- YTD
- 20.79%
- 6M
- 18.16%
- 1Y
- 33.12%
- 3Y*
- 19.62%
- 5Y*
- 7.71%
- 10Y*
- 10.97%
VOT
- 1D
- -1.99%
- 1M
- 3.19%
- YTD
- 7.86%
- 6M
- 5.95%
- 1Y
- 10.01%
- 3Y*
- 15.69%
- 5Y*
- 5.73%
- 10Y*
- 12.50%
RFG vs. VOT - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RFG Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF | 20.79% | 8.80% | 17.80% | 16.42% | -21.70% | 13.81% | 32.86% | 17.09% | -13.98% | 20.46% |
VOT Vanguard Mid-Cap Growth ETF | 7.86% | 10.72% | 16.38% | 23.10% | -28.87% | 20.50% | 34.50% | 33.76% | -5.56% | 21.80% |
Correlation
The correlation between RFG and VOT is 0.85, 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 | 0.85 |
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period | 0.87 |
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | 0.89 |
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | 0.89 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 25, 2006 | 0.90 |
The correlation between RFG and VOT has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.85 to 0.90 - a consistent structural relationship.
RFG vs. VOT - Sectors Allocation Comparison
Sectors
RFG
VOT
Industrials
Technology
Healthcare
Energy
Consumer Defensive
Consumer Cyclical
Financial Services
Basic Materials
Utilities
Real Estate
Communication Services
Industrials
RFG
VOT
Technology
RFG
VOT
Healthcare
RFG
VOT
Energy
RFG
VOT
Consumer Defensive
RFG
VOT
Consumer Cyclical
RFG
VOT
Financial Services
RFG
VOT
Basic Materials
RFG
VOT
Utilities
RFG
VOT
Real Estate
RFG
VOT
Communication Services
RFG
VOT
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
Return for Risk
RFG vs. VOT — Risk / Return Rank
RFG
VOT
RFG vs. VOT - 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 Vanguard Mid-Cap Growth ETF (VOT). 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 | VOT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | +1.13 | ||
| Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | +1.51 | ||
| Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.30 | 1.11 | +0.19 |
| Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 3.20 | 0.63 | +2.57 |
| Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 12.88 | 1.87 | +11.01 |
Loading charts...
Drawdowns
RFG vs. VOT - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum RFG drawdown since its inception was -51.93%, smaller than the maximum VOT drawdown of -60.16%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RFG and VOT.
Loading charts...
Drawdown Indicators
| RFG | VOT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -51.93% | -60.16% | +8.23% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -10.41% | -15.96% | +5.55% |
Max Drawdown (3Y)Largest decline over 3 years | -26.71% | -21.77% | -4.94% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | -35.16% | -37.19% | +2.03% |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | -42.92% | -37.19% | -5.73% |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -1.97% | -1.99% | +0.02% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -8.95% | -9.94% | +0.99% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 2.58% | 5.35% | -2.77% |
Volatility
RFG vs. VOT - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF (RFG) is 6.67%, while Vanguard Mid-Cap Growth ETF (VOT) has a volatility of 7.06%. This indicates that RFG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than VOT based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading charts...
Volatility by Period
| RFG | VOT | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 6.67% | 7.06% | -0.39% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 15.63% | 13.69% | +1.94% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 19.25% | 16.92% | +2.33% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 22.93% | 21.53% | +1.40% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 23.07% | 21.04% | +2.03% |
RFG vs. VOT - Expense Ratio Comparison
RFG has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than VOT's 0.05% expense ratio.
Dividends
RFG vs. VOT - Dividend Comparison
RFG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.14%, less than VOT's 0.62% yield.
| Position | TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RFG Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF | 0.14% | 0.43% | 0.38% | 0.99% | 0.78% | 0.05% | 0.27% | 0.64% | 0.76% | 0.66% | 0.35% | 0.61% |
VOT Vanguard Mid-Cap Growth ETF | 0.62% | 0.64% | 0.67% | 0.71% | 0.78% | 0.34% | 0.56% | 0.78% | 0.84% | 0.72% | 0.81% | 0.81% |
Frequently Asked Questions
RFG and VOT have a correlation of 0.85, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.
VOT has higher volatility (7.06%) compared to RFG (6.67%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RFG dropped -51.93% vs VOT's -60.16%.
On 10-year performance, VOT leads with 12.50% vs 10.97% for RFG. On fees, VOT is cheaper at 0.05% per year. On volatility, RFG has been the lower-risk option at 6.67%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.
Over the 10-year period, VOT has performed better with a 12.50% return vs 10.97%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.
VOT is cheaper with a 0.05% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for RFG.
VOT has the higher dividend yield at 0.62%, compared with 0.14% for RFG.
RFG is categorized as Small Cap Growth Equities, while VOT is Mid Cap Growth Equities. RFG tracks S&P Mid Cap 400 Pure Growth, while VOT tracks CRSP US Mid Cap Growth Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Vanguard. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for RFG and 0.05% for VOT.
RFG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.73 vs 0.59), 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.
Find the right allocation for RFG and VOT
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