RFV vs. XMHQ

Last updated Jul 31, 2026

RFV (Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Value ETF) and XMHQ (Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RFV is a Small Cap Value Equities fund tracking the S&P Mid Cap 400 Pure Value, while XMHQ is a Quality Factor fund tracking the S&P MidCap 400 Quality Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 10 years, RFV returned 12.58%/yr vs 12.73%/yr for XMHQ. Their 0.79 correlation means they have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently. RFV charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.25%/yr for XMHQ.

Performance

RFV vs. XMHQ - 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 MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RFV achieves a 19.11% return, which is significantly higher than XMHQ's 12.24% return. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with RFV having a 12.58% annualized return and XMHQ not far ahead at 12.73%.

RFV

• 1D: 0.58%
• 1M: 5.54%
• 6M: 13.42%
• YTD: 19.11%
• 1Y: 23.03%
• 3Y*: 13.33%
• 5Y*: 12.38%
• 10Y*: 12.58%
• ALL TIME*: 10.02%

XMHQ

• 1D: 0.36%
• 1M: 1.54%
• 6M: 6.56%
• YTD: 12.24%
• 1Y: 12.13%
• 3Y*: 13.42%
• 5Y*: 10.13%
• 10Y*: 12.73%
• ALL TIME*: 9.46%

*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)
RFV Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Value ETF	$888.35K	$981.36K	$747.86K
XMHQ Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF	$22.05M	$20.42M	$20.58M

RFV vs. XMHQ - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
RFV Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Value ETF	19.11%	7.66%	5.63%	30.26%	-3.99%	33.02%	9.61%	24.98%	-18.56%	14.74%
XMHQ Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF	12.24%	4.71%	16.79%	29.51%	-12.42%	20.98%	26.61%	27.18%	-9.08%	15.64%

Correlation

The correlation between RFV and XMHQ is 0.72, 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.	0.72
Correlation (3Y) Balances recent behavior with more history.	0.81
Correlation (5Y) Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.	0.87
Correlation (10Y) Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.	0.82
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Dec 1, 2006	0.79

The correlation between RFV and XMHQ shifts across timeframes, from 0.72 (1 year) to 0.87 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

RFV vs. XMHQ - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RFV	XMHQ
Consumer Cyclical	25.1%	9.4%
Financial Services	18.6%	15.1%
Energy	13.9%	6.9%
Technology	11.6%	18.5%
Industrials	11.1%	30.2%
Consumer Defensive	6.6%	1.1%
Basic Materials	6.4%	1.5%
Real Estate	4.0%	-
Communication Services	1.8%	1.4%
Healthcare	0.7%	16.0%
Utilities	-	2.2%

Return for Risk

RFV vs. XMHQ — Risk / Return Rank

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

RFV

RFV Risk / Return Rank: 57
RFV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 59
RFV Sortino Ratio Rank: 64
RFV Omega Ratio Rank: 57
RFV Calmar Ratio Rank: 54
RFV Martin Ratio Rank: 52

XMHQ

XMHQ Risk / Return Rank: 36
XMHQ Sharpe Ratio Rank: 34
XMHQ Sortino Ratio Rank: 35
XMHQ Omega Ratio Rank: 31
XMHQ Calmar Ratio Rank: 41
XMHQ Martin Ratio Rank: 41

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.

RFV vs. XMHQ - 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 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.

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	XMHQ	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.36	0.80	+0.56
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.06	1.25	+0.80
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.24	1.14	+0.10
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.85	1.38	+0.47
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.86	4.09	+1.76

RFV vs. XMHQ - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RFV Sharpe Ratio is 1.36, which is higher than the XMHQ Sharpe Ratio of 0.80. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RFV and XMHQ, 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. XMHQ - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RFV drawdown since its inception was -71.82%, which is greater than XMHQ's maximum drawdown of -58.19%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RFV and XMHQ.

Drawdown Indicators

	RFV	XMHQ	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-71.82%	-58.19%	-13.63%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-12.51%	-8.85%	-3.66%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.65%	-24.56%	-0.09%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-24.65%	-25.47%	+0.82%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-52.24%	-36.90%	-15.34%
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-0.28%	+0.28%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-9.73%	-9.22%	-0.51%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.98%	3.00%	+0.98%

Volatility

RFV vs. XMHQ - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Value ETF (RFV) and Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF (XMHQ) have volatilities of 3.04% and 3.13%, 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.

Volatility by Period

	RFV	XMHQ	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.04%	3.13%	-0.09%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.14%	11.09%	+0.05%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.19%	15.31%	+1.88%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	21.78%	20.58%	+1.20%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	24.84%	20.63%	+4.21%

RFV vs. XMHQ - Expense Ratio Comparison

RFV has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is higher than XMHQ's 0.25% expense ratio.

Dividends

RFV vs. XMHQ - Dividend Comparison

RFV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.60%, more than XMHQ's 0.57% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
RFV Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Value ETF	1.60%	2.07%	1.31%	1.27%	2.05%	1.60%	1.52%	1.71%	1.39%	1.36%	0.88%	1.79%
XMHQ Invesco S&P MidCap Quality ETF	0.57%	0.64%	5.20%	0.73%	1.72%	1.00%	1.12%	1.22%	1.59%	1.06%	1.63%	1.34%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RFV and XMHQ in my portfolio?

RFV and XMHQ have a correlation of 0.72, 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 XMHQ?

XMHQ has higher volatility (3.13%) compared to RFV (3.04%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RFV dropped -71.82% vs XMHQ's -58.19%.

Which ETF is better, RFV or XMHQ?

On 10-year performance, XMHQ leads with 12.73% vs 12.58% for RFV. On fees, XMHQ is cheaper at 0.25% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RFV or XMHQ?

Over the 10-year period, XMHQ has performed better with a 12.73% return vs 12.58%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RFV or XMHQ?

XMHQ is cheaper with a 0.25% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for RFV.

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

RFV has the higher dividend yield at 1.60%, compared with 0.57% for XMHQ.

What is the main difference between RFV and XMHQ?

RFV is categorized as Small Cap Value Equities, while XMHQ is Quality Factor. RFV tracks S&P Mid Cap 400 Pure Value, while XMHQ tracks S&P MidCap 400 Quality Index. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for RFV and 0.25% for XMHQ.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RFV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.36 vs 0.80), 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.