RFV vs. ECML

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RFV (Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Value ETF) and ECML (EA Series Trust - Euclidean Fundamental Value ETF) are both Small Cap Value Equities funds. RFV is passively managed, while ECML is actively managed. Over the past 3 years, RFV returned 16.77%/yr vs 15.57%/yr for ECML. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. RFV charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.95%/yr for ECML.

Performance

RFV vs. ECML - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Value ETF (RFV) and EA Series Trust - Euclidean Fundamental Value ETF (ECML). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RFV achieves a 13.04% return, which is significantly lower than ECML's 14.39% return.

RFV

• 1D: -0.36%
• 1M: 3.75%
• YTD: 13.04%
• 6M: 10.71%
• 1Y: 25.06%
• 3Y*: 16.77%
• 5Y*: 10.00%
• 10Y*: 12.53%

ECML

• 1D: 0.16%
• 1M: 1.49%
• YTD: 14.39%
• 6M: 14.23%
• 1Y: 26.84%
• 3Y*: 15.57%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RFV vs. ECML - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
RFV Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Value ETF	13.04%	7.66%	5.63%	23.96%
ECML EA Series Trust - Euclidean Fundamental Value ETF	14.39%	6.82%	2.37%	24.36%

Correlation

The correlation between RFV and ECML is 0.82, 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	0.82
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.87
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since May 19, 2023	0.87

The correlation between RFV and ECML has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.82 to 0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.

RFV vs. ECML - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RFV	ECML
Consumer Cyclical	24.4%	23.8%
Financial Services	17.5%	-
Energy	12.9%	13.2%
Technology	12.9%	5.3%
Industrials	11.4%	14.2%
Consumer Defensive	9.1%	12.4%
Basic Materials	7.6%	10.6%
Real Estate	3.5%	-
Healthcare	0.7%	16.6%
Communication Services	-	3.9%
Utilities	-	1.4%

Return for Risk

RFV vs. ECML — Risk / Return Rank

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

RFV

RFV Risk / Return Rank: 39
RFV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
RFV Sortino Ratio Rank: 42
RFV Omega Ratio Rank: 37
RFV Calmar Ratio Rank: 40
RFV Martin Ratio Rank: 38

ECML

ECML Risk / Return Rank: 61
ECML Sharpe Ratio Rank: 55
ECML Sortino Ratio Rank: 61
ECML Omega Ratio Rank: 53
ECML Calmar Ratio Rank: 77
ECML Martin Ratio Rank: 62

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.

RFV vs. ECML - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Value ETF (RFV) and EA Series Trust - Euclidean Fundamental Value ETF (ECML). 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.

	RFV	ECML	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.39	1.86	-0.46
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.13	2.85	-0.71
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.25	1.32	-0.08
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.01	3.85	-1.83
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.94	11.05	-5.11
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RFV vs. ECML - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RFV Sharpe Ratio is 1.39, which is comparable to the ECML Sharpe Ratio of 1.86. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RFV and ECML, 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

	RFV	ECML	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.39	1.86	-0.46
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.46	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.50	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.38	0.86	-0.48

Drawdowns

RFV vs. ECML - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RFV drawdown since its inception was -71.82%, which is greater than ECML's maximum drawdown of -24.66%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RFV and ECML.

Drawdown Indicators

	RFV	ECML	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-71.82%	-24.66%	-47.16%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.51%	-7.01%	-5.50%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.65%	-24.66%	+0.01%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.65%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-52.24%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.36%	-0.27%	-0.09%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.79%	-5.88%	-3.91%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.23%	2.44%	+1.79%

Volatility

RFV vs. ECML - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Value ETF (RFV) has a higher volatility of 4.60% compared to EA Series Trust - Euclidean Fundamental Value ETF (ECML) at 3.84%. This indicates that RFV's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than ECML based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RFV	ECML	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.60%	3.84%	+0.76%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.86%	9.75%	+2.11%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.13%	14.56%	+3.57%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	22.08%	18.39%	+3.69%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.99%	18.39%	+6.60%

RFV vs. ECML - Expense Ratio Comparison

RFV has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than ECML's 0.95% expense ratio.

Dividends

RFV vs. ECML - Dividend Comparison

RFV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.84%, more than ECML's 1.20% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
ECML EA Series Trust - Euclidean Fundamental Value ETF	1.20%	1.38%	0.98%	0.77%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RFV Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Value ETF	1.84%	2.07%	1.31%	1.27%	2.05%	1.60%	1.52%	1.71%	1.39%	1.36%	0.88%	1.79%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RFV and ECML in my portfolio?

RFV and ECML have a correlation of 0.82, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RFV or ECML?

RFV has higher volatility (4.60%) compared to ECML (3.84%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RFV dropped -71.82% vs ECML's -24.66%.

Which ETF is better, RFV or ECML?

On 3-year performance, RFV leads with 16.77% vs 15.57% for ECML. On fees, RFV is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, ECML has been the lower-risk option at 3.84%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RFV or ECML?

Over the 3-year period, RFV has performed better with a 16.77% return vs 15.57%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RFV or ECML?

RFV is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for ECML.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RFV or ECML?

RFV has the higher dividend yield at 1.84%, compared with 1.20% for ECML.

What is the main difference between RFV and ECML?

They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Euclidean. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for RFV and 0.95% for ECML.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

ECML currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.86 vs 1.39), 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.