RFG vs. XLG

Last updated Aug 2, 2026

RFG (Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF) and XLG (Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RFG is a Small Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the S&P Mid Cap 400 Pure Growth, while XLG is a S&P 500 fund tracking the S&P 500 Top 50 Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, RFG returned 9.64%/yr vs 16.35%/yr for XLG. Their 0.74 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. RFG charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for XLG.

Performance

RFG vs. XLG - 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 Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF (XLG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RFG achieves a 13.90% return, which is significantly higher than XLG's 2.89% return. Over the past 10 years, RFG has underperformed XLG with an annualized return of 9.64%, while XLG has yielded a comparatively higher 16.35% annualized return.

RFG

• 1D: 0.12%
• 1M: -4.54%
• 6M: 8.66%
• YTD: 13.90%
• 1Y: 19.95%
• 3Y*: 14.10%
• 5Y*: 6.33%
• 10Y*: 9.64%
• ALL TIME*: 9.54%

XLG

• 1D: 1.06%
• 1M: 0.07%
• 6M: 3.36%
• YTD: 2.89%
• 1Y: 15.84%
• 3Y*: 20.00%
• 5Y*: 13.72%
• 10Y*: 16.35%
• ALL TIME*: 11.32%

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

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
RFG Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF	$240.77K	$300.86K	$394.29K
XLG Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF	$61.04M	$60.71M	$102.52M

RFG vs. XLG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
RFG Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF	13.90%	8.80%	17.80%	16.42%	-21.70%	13.81%	32.86%	17.09%	-13.98%	20.46%
XLG Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF	2.89%	19.51%	33.49%	38.16%	-24.29%	30.77%	24.15%	32.04%	-3.59%	23.04%

Correlation

The correlation between RFG and XLG is 0.63, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.63
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.63
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.71
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.	0.71
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 7, 2006	0.74

The correlation between RFG and XLG shifts across timeframes, from 0.63 (1 year) to 0.74 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

RFG vs. XLG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RFG	XLG
Industrials	31.6%	1.9%
Technology	23.3%	49.8%
Healthcare	19.3%	6.8%
Consumer Cyclical	6.7%	9.3%
Energy	4.0%	2.5%
Basic Materials	3.6%	0.6%
Financial Services	3.4%	10.3%
Consumer Defensive	2.4%	5.1%
Utilities	2.2%	0.7%
Real Estate	1.9%	-
Communication Services	1.6%	13.0%

Return for Risk

RFG vs. XLG — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

RFG

RFG Risk / Return Rank: 43
RFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
RFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
RFG Omega Ratio Rank: 36
RFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 51
RFG Martin Ratio Rank: 53

XLG

XLG Risk / Return Rank: 35
XLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 37
XLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 36
XLG Omega Ratio Rank: 35
XLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 33
XLG Martin Ratio Rank: 35

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

RFG vs. XLG - 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 Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF (XLG). 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	XLG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.95	0.92	+0.03
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.46	1.35	+0.12
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.17	1.17	+0.01
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.81	1.10	+0.71
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	6.13	3.41	+2.72

RFG vs. XLG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RFG Sharpe Ratio is 0.95, which is comparable to the XLG Sharpe Ratio of 0.92. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RFG and XLG, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

RFG vs. XLG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RFG drawdown since its inception was -51.93%, roughly equal to the maximum XLG drawdown of -52.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RFG and XLG.

Drawdown Indicators

	RFG	XLG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-51.93%	-52.39%	+0.46%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.41%	-12.41%	+2.00%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.71%	-20.70%	-6.01%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-35.16%	-28.02%	-7.14%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-42.92%	-30.46%	-12.46%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.56%	-5.74%	-1.82%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.93%	-7.62%	-1.31%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.07%	3.98%	-0.91%

Volatility

RFG vs. XLG - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF (RFG) has a higher volatility of 6.10% compared to Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF (XLG) at 5.03%. This indicates that RFG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XLG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RFG	XLG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.10%	5.03%	+1.07%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	16.32%	11.54%	+4.78%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	19.84%	14.75%	+5.09%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.99%	18.89%	+4.10%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.10%	18.92%	+4.18%

RFG vs. XLG - Expense Ratio Comparison

RFG has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than XLG's 0.20% expense ratio.

Dividends

RFG vs. XLG - Dividend Comparison

RFG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.15%, less than XLG's 0.65% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
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%
XLG Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF	0.65%	0.64%	0.72%	0.97%	1.34%	0.94%	1.25%	1.58%	2.00%	1.85%	2.00%	2.09%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RFG and XLG in my portfolio?

RFG and XLG have a correlation of 0.63, 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 XLG?

RFG has higher volatility (6.10%) compared to XLG (5.03%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RFG dropped -51.93% vs XLG's -52.39%.

Which ETF is better, RFG or XLG?

On 10-year performance, XLG leads with 16.35% vs 9.64% for RFG. On fees, XLG is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, XLG has been the lower-risk option at 5.03%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RFG or XLG?

Over the 10-year period, XLG has performed better with a 16.35% return vs 9.64%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RFG or XLG?

XLG is cheaper with a 0.20% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for RFG.

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

XLG has the higher dividend yield at 0.65%, compared with 0.15% for RFG.

What is the main difference between RFG and XLG?

RFG is categorized as Small Cap Growth Equities, while XLG is S&P 500. RFG tracks S&P Mid Cap 400 Pure Growth, while XLG tracks S&P 500 Top 50 Index. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for RFG and 0.20% for XLG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RFG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.95 vs 0.92), 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.