RFV vs. XLG

Last updated Jun 24, 2026

RFV (Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Value ETF) and XLG (Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RFV is a Small Cap Value Equities fund tracking the S&P Mid Cap 400 Pure Value, 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, RFV returned 12.72%/yr vs 16.94%/yr for XLG. A 0.66 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RFV charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.20%/yr for XLG.

Performance

RFV vs. XLG - 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 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, RFV achieves a 12.16% return, which is significantly higher than XLG's 1.60% return. Over the past 10 years, RFV has underperformed XLG with an annualized return of 12.72%, while XLG has yielded a comparatively higher 16.94% annualized return.

RFV

• 1D: -0.25%
• 1M: 2.83%
• YTD: 12.16%
• 6M: 11.00%
• 1Y: 21.60%
• 3Y*: 15.04%
• 5Y*: 10.82%
• 10Y*: 12.72%

XLG

• 1D: -1.88%
• 1M: -5.41%
• YTD: 1.60%
• 6M: 0.73%
• 1Y: 19.95%
• 3Y*: 21.35%
• 5Y*: 14.28%
• 10Y*: 16.94%

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

RFV vs. XLG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
RFV Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Value ETF	12.16%	7.66%	5.63%	30.26%	-3.99%	33.02%	9.61%	24.98%	-18.56%	14.74%
XLG Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF	1.60%	19.51%	33.49%	38.16%	-24.29%	30.77%	24.15%	32.04%	-3.59%	23.04%

Correlation

The correlation between RFV and XLG is 0.34, which is low. Their price movements are largely independent, making them effective diversification partners.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.34
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.48
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.59
Correlation (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.58
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 7, 2006	0.66

Over the past year, the correlation between RFV and XLG has dropped to 0.34 - well below their long-term average of 0.66, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

RFV vs. XLG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RFV	XLG
Consumer Cyclical	25.5%	11.2%
Financial Services	17.4%	9.0%
Technology	14.2%	46.8%
Energy	12.1%	2.4%
Industrials	11.7%	1.9%
Basic Materials	7.6%	0.6%
Consumer Defensive	7.4%	5.2%
Real Estate	3.5%	-
Healthcare	0.6%	7.0%
Communication Services	-	16.0%
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

RFV vs. XLG — Risk / Return Rank

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

RFV

RFV Risk / Return Rank: 36
RFV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 35
RFV Sortino Ratio Rank: 38
RFV Omega Ratio Rank: 33
RFV Calmar Ratio Rank: 36
RFV Martin Ratio Rank: 35

XLG

XLG Risk / Return Rank: 39
XLG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 42
XLG Sortino Ratio Rank: 40
XLG Omega Ratio Rank: 41
XLG Calmar Ratio Rank: 33
XLG Martin Ratio Rank: 38

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. XLG - 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 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.

	RFV	XLG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.20	1.44	-0.23
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.87	1.98	-0.11
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.22	1.26	-0.04
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.73	1.61	+0.12
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.10	5.77	-0.67

RFV vs. XLG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RFV Sharpe Ratio is 1.20, which is comparable to the XLG Sharpe Ratio of 1.44. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RFV 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

RFV vs. XLG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RFV drawdown since its inception was -71.82%, which is greater than XLG's maximum drawdown of -52.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RFV and XLG.

Drawdown Indicators

	RFV	XLG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-71.82%	-52.39%	-19.43%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.51%	-12.41%	-0.10%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.65%	-20.70%	-3.95%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.65%	-28.02%	+3.37%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-52.24%	-30.46%	-21.78%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.86%	-6.91%	+4.05%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.77%	-7.63%	-2.14%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.24%	3.46%	+0.78%

Volatility

RFV vs. XLG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Value ETF (RFV) is 4.28%, while Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF (XLG) has a volatility of 5.04%. This indicates that RFV experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XLG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RFV	XLG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.28%	5.04%	-0.76%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.90%	10.74%	+1.16%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	18.02%	13.98%	+4.04%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.98%	18.79%	+3.19%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.94%	18.88%	+6.06%

RFV vs. XLG - Expense Ratio Comparison

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

Dividends

RFV vs. XLG - Dividend Comparison

RFV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.70%, more than XLG's 0.66% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
RFV Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Value ETF	1.70%	2.07%	1.31%	1.27%	2.05%	1.60%	1.52%	1.71%	1.39%	1.36%	0.88%	1.79%
XLG Invesco S&P 500 Top 50 ETF	0.66%	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 RFV and XLG in my portfolio?

RFV and XLG have a correlation of 0.34, 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 XLG?

XLG has higher volatility (5.04%) compared to RFV (4.28%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RFV dropped -71.82% vs XLG's -52.39%.

Which ETF is better, RFV or XLG?

On 10-year performance, XLG leads with 16.94% vs 12.72% for RFV. On fees, XLG is cheaper at 0.20% per year. On volatility, RFV has been the lower-risk option at 4.28%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RFV or XLG?

Over the 10-year period, XLG has performed better with a 16.94% return vs 12.72%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RFV or XLG?

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

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

RFV has the higher dividend yield at 1.70%, compared with 0.66% for XLG.

What is the main difference between RFV and XLG?

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

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

XLG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.44 vs 1.20), 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.