RFG vs. XMMO

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RFG (Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF) and XMMO (Invesco S&P MidCap Momentum ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RFG is a Small Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the S&P Mid Cap 400 Pure Growth, while XMMO is a Momentum fund tracking the S&P MidCap 400 Momentum Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, RFG returned 10.49%/yr vs 19.73%/yr for XMMO. Their correlation of 0.88 suggests significant overlap in exposure. Both charge a 0.35% expense ratio.

Performance

RFG vs. XMMO - 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 MidCap Momentum ETF (XMMO). 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 XMMO's 23.73% return. Over the past 10 years, RFG has underperformed XMMO with an annualized return of 10.49%, while XMMO has yielded a comparatively higher 19.73% annualized return.

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%

XMMO

• 1D: 0.62%
• 1M: 6.87%
• YTD: 23.73%
• 6M: 25.73%
• 1Y: 36.97%
• 3Y*: 32.10%
• 5Y*: 16.69%
• 10Y*: 19.73%

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

RFG vs. XMMO - 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%
XMMO Invesco S&P MidCap Momentum ETF	23.73%	13.04%	38.03%	20.39%	-16.02%	16.69%	29.17%	36.78%	6.12%	37.18%

Correlation

The correlation between RFG and XMMO 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	0.93
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.92
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.90
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 8, 2006	0.88

The correlation between RFG and XMMO has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.88 to 0.93 - a consistent structural relationship.

RFG vs. XMMO - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RFG	XMMO
Industrials	31.3%	41.1%
Technology	21.2%	16.7%
Healthcare	19.4%	6.3%
Consumer Cyclical	7.6%	4.6%
Energy	5.4%	7.7%
Financial Services	3.7%	2.4%
Basic Materials	3.3%	7.2%
Consumer Defensive	3.1%	0.5%
Utilities	2.4%	5.8%
Real Estate	2.2%	6.1%
Communication Services	0.6%	1.6%

Return for Risk

RFG vs. XMMO — 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

XMMO

XMMO Risk / Return Rank: 67
XMMO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 57
XMMO Sortino Ratio Rank: 57
XMMO Omega Ratio Rank: 55
XMMO Calmar Ratio Rank: 83
XMMO Martin Ratio Rank: 85

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. XMMO - 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 MidCap Momentum ETF (XMMO). 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	XMMO	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.79	1.99	-0.20
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.55	2.77	-0.22
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.31	1.35	-0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.18	4.45	-1.27
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.89	18.21	-5.32
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. XMMO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RFG Sharpe Ratio is 1.79, which is comparable to the XMMO Sharpe Ratio of 1.99. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RFG and XMMO, 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	XMMO	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.79	1.99	-0.20
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.38	0.78	-0.40
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.46	0.89	-0.43
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.43	0.58	-0.15

Drawdowns

RFG vs. XMMO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RFG drawdown since its inception was -51.93%, smaller than the maximum XMMO drawdown of -55.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RFG and XMMO.

Drawdown Indicators

	RFG	XMMO	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-51.93%	-55.37%	+3.44%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-10.41%	-8.34%	-2.07%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-26.71%	-24.93%	-1.78%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-35.16%	-27.91%	-7.25%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-42.92%	-36.74%	-6.18%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.97%	-9.45%	+0.48%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.56%	2.04%	+0.52%

Volatility

RFG vs. XMMO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF (RFG) is 6.50%, while Invesco S&P MidCap Momentum ETF (XMMO) has a volatility of 7.82%. This indicates that RFG experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XMMO based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RFG	XMMO	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.50%	7.82%	-1.32%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.72%	15.54%	-0.82%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.53%	18.71%	-0.18%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.81%	21.45%	+1.36%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.05%	22.27%	+0.78%

RFG vs. XMMO - Expense Ratio Comparison

Both RFG and XMMO have an expense ratio of 0.35%.

Dividends

RFG vs. XMMO - Dividend Comparison

RFG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.31%, less than XMMO's 0.60% yield.

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%
XMMO Invesco S&P MidCap Momentum ETF	0.60%	0.78%	0.34%	0.80%	1.43%	0.41%	0.61%	0.60%	0.19%	0.21%	0.22%	0.64%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RFG and XMMO in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.90, RFG and XMMO 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.

Which is riskier, RFG or XMMO?

XMMO has higher volatility (7.82%) compared to RFG (6.50%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RFG dropped -51.93% vs XMMO's -55.37%.

Which ETF is better, RFG or XMMO?

On 10-year performance, XMMO leads with 19.73% vs 10.49% for RFG. Both ETFs have the same 0.35% expense ratio. 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 XMMO?

Over the 10-year period, XMMO has performed better with a 19.73% 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 XMMO?

RFG and XMMO have the same expense ratio: 0.35% per year.

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

XMMO has the higher dividend yield at 0.60%, compared with 0.31% for RFG.

What is the main difference between RFG and XMMO?

RFG is categorized as Small Cap Growth Equities, while XMMO is Momentum. RFG tracks S&P Mid Cap 400 Pure Growth, while XMMO tracks S&P MidCap 400 Momentum Index.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

XMMO currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.99 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.