PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
RFG vs. VTWG
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

RFG vs. VTWG - 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 Vanguard Russell 2000 Growth ETF (VTWG). 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 15.53% return, which is significantly lower than VTWG's 17.62% return. Over the past 10 years, RFG has underperformed VTWG with an annualized return of 9.73%, while VTWG has yielded a comparatively higher 11.08% annualized return.


RFG

1D
-1.46%
1M
-4.63%
6M
8.87%
YTD
15.53%
1Y
22.62%
3Y*
15.72%
5Y*
7.22%
10Y*
9.73%

VTWG

1D
-1.53%
1M
-0.17%
6M
10.23%
YTD
17.62%
1Y
32.15%
3Y*
16.19%
5Y*
5.87%
10Y*
11.08%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

RFG vs. VTWG - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
RFG
Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF
15.53%8.80%17.80%16.42%-21.70%13.81%32.86%17.09%-13.98%20.46%
VTWG
Vanguard Russell 2000 Growth ETF
17.62%13.07%15.15%18.90%-26.49%2.84%34.72%28.75%-9.45%22.27%

Correlation

The correlation between RFG and VTWG is 0.90, 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

0.90

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

0.90

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

0.92

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

0.92

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 22, 2010

0.91

The correlation between RFG and VTWG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.90 to 0.92 - a consistent structural relationship.

RFG vs. VTWG - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
RFG
VTWG

Industrials

32.3%
23.1%

Technology

22.8%
25.8%

Healthcare

19.0%
22.0%

Energy

4.9%
3.1%

Consumer Defensive

4.8%
2.3%

Financial Services

3.6%
7.8%

Consumer Cyclical

3.0%
7.1%

Basic Materials

2.9%
4.0%

Utilities

2.6%
0.6%

Real Estate

1.8%
2.0%

Communication Services

0.5%
2.2%

Industrials

RFG
32.3%
VTWG
23.1%

Technology

RFG
22.8%
VTWG
25.8%

Healthcare

RFG
19.0%
VTWG
22.0%

Energy

RFG
4.9%
VTWG
3.1%

Consumer Defensive

RFG
4.8%
VTWG
2.3%

Financial Services

RFG
3.6%
VTWG
7.8%

Consumer Cyclical

RFG
3.0%
VTWG
7.1%

Basic Materials

RFG
2.9%
VTWG
4.0%

Utilities

RFG
2.6%
VTWG
0.6%

Real Estate

RFG
1.8%
VTWG
2.0%

Communication Services

RFG
0.5%
VTWG
2.2%

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. VTWG — Risk / Return Rank

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

RFG
RFG Risk / Return Rank: 4747
Overall Rank
RFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 4141
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 4141
Sortino Ratio Rank
RFG Omega Ratio Rank: 3838
Omega Ratio Rank
RFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 5555
Calmar Ratio Rank
RFG Martin Ratio Rank: 6060
Martin Ratio Rank

VTWG
VTWG Risk / Return Rank: 5353
Overall Rank
VTWG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 5353
Sharpe Ratio Rank
VTWG Sortino Ratio Rank: 5353
Sortino Ratio Rank
VTWG Omega Ratio Rank: 4747
Omega Ratio Rank
VTWG Calmar Ratio Rank: 5454
Calmar Ratio Rank
VTWG Martin Ratio Rank: 5757
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. VTWG - 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 Russell 2000 Growth ETF (VTWG). 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.


RFGVTWGDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-0.29

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-0.34

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.20

1.24

-0.04

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.18

2.17

+0.01

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

8.41

7.76

+0.65

RFG vs. VTWG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RFG Sharpe Ratio is 1.16, which is comparable to the VTWG Sharpe Ratio of 1.45. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RFG and VTWG, 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...

Drawdowns

RFG vs. VTWG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RFG drawdown since its inception was -51.93%, which is greater than VTWG's maximum drawdown of -42.07%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RFG and VTWG.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


RFGVTWGDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-51.93%

-42.07%

-9.86%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.41%

-14.88%

+4.47%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-26.71%

-28.58%

+1.87%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-35.16%

-40.49%

+5.33%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-42.92%

-42.07%

-0.85%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-6.23%

-3.80%

-2.43%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-8.93%

-10.47%

+1.54%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

2.69%

4.15%

-1.46%

Volatility

RFG vs. VTWG - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF (RFG) and Vanguard Russell 2000 Growth ETF (VTWG) have volatilities of 6.44% and 6.37%, respectively, indicating that both stocks experience similar levels of price fluctuations. This suggests that the risk associated with both stocks, as measured by volatility, is nearly the same. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


RFGVTWGDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

6.44%

6.37%

+0.07%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

15.84%

16.88%

-1.04%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

19.62%

22.33%

-2.71%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

22.97%

24.67%

-1.70%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

23.06%

24.23%

-1.17%

RFG vs. VTWG - Expense Ratio Comparison

RFG has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than VTWG's 0.06% expense ratio.


Dividends

RFG vs. VTWG - Dividend Comparison

RFG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.15%, less than VTWG's 0.60% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
RFG
Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF
0.15%0.43%0.38%0.99%0.78%0.05%0.27%0.64%0.76%0.66%0.35%0.61%
VTWG
Vanguard Russell 2000 Growth ETF
0.60%0.64%0.55%0.79%0.71%0.54%0.48%0.72%0.72%0.64%0.96%0.72%

Frequently Asked Questions


With a correlation of 0.90, RFG and VTWG move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

RFG has higher volatility (6.44%) compared to VTWG (6.37%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RFG dropped -51.93% vs VTWG's -42.07%.

On 10-year performance, VTWG leads with 11.08% vs 9.73% for RFG. On fees, VTWG is cheaper at 0.06% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, VTWG has performed better with a 11.08% return vs 9.73%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

VTWG is cheaper with a 0.06% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for RFG.

VTWG has the higher dividend yield at 0.60%, compared with 0.15% for RFG.

RFG tracks S&P Mid Cap 400 Pure Growth, while VTWG tracks Russell 2000 Growth Index. They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Vanguard. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for RFG and 0.06% for VTWG.

VTWG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.45 vs 1.16), 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 VTWG

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