RFG vs. XMHQ
Compare and contrast key facts about Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF (RFG) and Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ).
RFG and XMHQ are both exchange-traded funds (ETFs), meaning they are traded on stock exchanges and can be bought and sold throughout the day. RFG is a passively managed fund by Invesco that tracks the performance of the S&P Mid Cap 400 Pure Growth. It was launched on Mar 1, 2006. XMHQ is a passively managed fund by Invesco that tracks the performance of the S&P MidCap 400 Index. It was launched on Dec 1, 2006. Both RFG and XMHQ are passive ETFs, meaning that they are not actively managed but aim to replicate the performance of the underlying index as closely as possible.
Scroll down to visually compare performance, riskiness, drawdowns, and other indicators and decide which better suits your portfolio: RFG or XMHQ.
Key characteristics
| RFG | XMHQ | |
|---|---|---|
| YTD Return | 25.28% | 24.82% |
| 1Y Return | 35.56% | 39.14% |
| 3Y Return (Ann) | 2.68% | 11.01% |
| 5Y Return (Ann) | 12.42% | 17.65% |
| 10Y Return (Ann) | 8.31% | 12.50% |
| Sharpe Ratio | 1.91 | 2.15 |
| Sortino Ratio | 2.64 | 3.04 |
| Omega Ratio | 1.32 | 1.36 |
| Calmar Ratio | 1.74 | 3.78 |
| Martin Ratio | 8.23 | 9.28 |
| Ulcer Index | 4.38% | 4.20% |
| Daily Std Dev | 18.93% | 18.13% |
| Max Drawdown | -51.93% | -58.19% |
| Current Drawdown | -1.19% | -0.93% |
Correlation
The correlation between RFG and XMHQ is 0.81, which is considered to be high. That indicates a strong positive relationship between their price movements. Having highly-correlated positions in a portfolio may signal a lack of diversification, potentially leading to increased risk during market downturns.
Performance
RFG vs. XMHQ - Performance Comparison
The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with RFG having a 25.28% return and XMHQ slightly lower at 24.82%. Over the past 10 years, RFG has underperformed XMHQ with an annualized return of 8.31%, while XMHQ has yielded a comparatively higher 12.50% annualized return. The chart below displays the growth of a $10,000 investment in both assets, with all prices adjusted for splits and dividends.
Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs
Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.
RFG vs. XMHQ - Expense Ratio Comparison
RFG has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than XMHQ's 0.25% expense ratio.
Risk-Adjusted Performance
RFG vs. XMHQ - Risk-Adjusted Performance 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 MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ). 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.
Dividends
RFG vs. XMHQ - Dividend Comparison
RFG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.54%, less than XMHQ's 4.83% yield.
| TTM | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RFG Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF | 0.54% | 0.99% | 0.78% | 0.26% | 0.27% | 0.64% | 0.76% | 0.66% | 0.35% | 0.61% | 0.60% | 0.65% |
XMHQ Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF | 4.83% | 0.73% | 1.72% | 1.00% | 1.12% | 1.22% | 1.59% | 1.06% | 1.64% | 1.34% | 1.25% | 1.11% |
Drawdowns
RFG vs. XMHQ - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum RFG drawdown since its inception was -51.93%, smaller than the maximum XMHQ drawdown of -58.19%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RFG and XMHQ. For additional features, visit the drawdowns tool.
Volatility
RFG vs. XMHQ - Volatility Comparison
Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF (RFG) and Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ) have volatilities of 5.52% and 5.55%, 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.