PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
RFV vs. XMMO
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

RFV vs. XMMO - 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 Momentum ETF (XMMO). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RFV achieves a 17.92% return, which is significantly higher than XMMO's 11.79% return. Over the past 10 years, RFV has underperformed XMMO with an annualized return of 12.60%, while XMMO has yielded a comparatively higher 18.04% annualized return.


RFV

1D
-1.00%
1M
4.85%
6M
12.70%
YTD
17.92%
1Y
27.20%
3Y*
13.08%
5Y*
12.15%
10Y*
12.60%
ALL TIME*
9.96%

XMMO

1D
0.22%
1M
-5.42%
6M
10.34%
YTD
11.79%
1Y
20.56%
3Y*
23.81%
5Y*
13.41%
10Y*
18.04%
ALL TIME*
12.11%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison


PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)
$925.25K$998.96K$749.36K
$60.32M$71.93M$66.65M

RFV vs. XMMO - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
RFV
Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Value ETF
17.92%7.66%5.63%30.26%-3.99%33.02%9.61%24.98%-18.56%14.74%
XMMO
Invesco S&P MidCap Momentum ETF
11.79%13.04%38.03%20.39%-16.02%16.69%29.17%36.78%6.12%37.18%

Correlation

The correlation between RFV and XMMO is 0.55, 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.

0.55

Correlation (3Y)
Balances recent behavior with more history.

0.70

Correlation (5Y)
Shows whether the relationship held over a longer period.

0.79

Correlation (10Y)
Provides a long-term view across more market conditions.

0.71

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Mar 7, 2006

0.74

The correlation between RFV and XMMO shifts across timeframes, from 0.55 (1 year) to 0.79 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

RFV vs. XMMO - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
RFV
XMMO

Consumer Cyclical

24.8%
5.0%

Financial Services

17.8%
2.9%

Energy

13.8%
8.4%

Technology

11.8%
12.9%

Industrials

11.0%
37.0%

Basic Materials

6.6%
10.2%

Consumer Defensive

6.2%
0.5%

Real Estate

3.8%
7.2%

Healthcare

2.4%
8.1%

Communication Services

1.8%
1.7%

Utilities

-

6.0%

Consumer Cyclical

RFV
24.8%
XMMO
5.0%

Financial Services

RFV
17.8%
XMMO
2.9%

Energy

RFV
13.8%
XMMO
8.4%

Technology

RFV
11.8%
XMMO
12.9%

Industrials

RFV
11.0%
XMMO
37.0%

Basic Materials

RFV
6.6%
XMMO
10.2%

Consumer Defensive

RFV
6.2%
XMMO
0.5%

Real Estate

RFV
3.8%
XMMO
7.2%

Healthcare

RFV
2.4%
XMMO
8.1%

Communication Services

RFV
1.8%
XMMO
1.7%

Utilities

RFV

-

XMMO
6.0%

Compare stocks, funds, or ETFs

Search for stocks, ETFs, and funds for a quick comparison or use the comparison tool for more options.


Return for Risk

RFV vs. XMMO — Risk / Return Rank

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

RFV
RFV Risk / Return Rank: 5858
Overall Rank
RFV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 6060
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RFV Sortino Ratio Rank: 6565
Sortino Ratio Rank
RFV Omega Ratio Rank: 5858
Omega Ratio Rank
RFV Calmar Ratio Rank: 5454
Calmar Ratio Rank
RFV Martin Ratio Rank: 5252
Martin Ratio Rank

XMMO
XMMO Risk / Return Rank: 3939
Overall Rank
XMMO Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3636
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XMMO Sortino Ratio Rank: 3636
Sortino Ratio Rank
XMMO Omega Ratio Rank: 3535
Omega Ratio Rank
XMMO Calmar Ratio Rank: 3939
Calmar Ratio Rank
XMMO Martin Ratio Rank: 5050
Martin Ratio Rank
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. XMMO - 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 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.

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.


RFVXMMODifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

+0.51

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

+0.79

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.25

1.17

+0.08

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

1.91

1.38

+0.54

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

6.08

5.81

+0.27

RFV vs. XMMO - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RFV Sharpe Ratio is 1.41, which is higher than the XMMO Sharpe Ratio of 0.89. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RFV 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.


Loading charts...

Drawdowns

RFV vs. XMMO - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RFV drawdown since its inception was -71.82%, which is greater than XMMO's maximum drawdown of -55.37%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RFV and XMMO.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


RFVXMMODifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-71.82%

-55.37%

-16.45%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-12.51%

-13.91%

+1.40%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-24.65%

-24.93%

+0.28%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-24.65%

-27.91%

+3.26%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-52.24%

-36.74%

-15.50%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-1.00%

-11.24%

+10.24%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-9.73%

-9.42%

-0.31%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.94%

3.29%

+0.65%

Volatility

RFV vs. XMMO - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Value ETF (RFV) is 3.27%, while Invesco S&P MidCap Momentum ETF (XMMO) has a volatility of 7.88%. This indicates that RFV 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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


RFVXMMODifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.27%

7.88%

-4.61%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.18%

18.46%

-7.28%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

17.10%

21.50%

-4.40%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

21.77%

21.86%

-0.09%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

24.83%

22.43%

+2.40%

RFV vs. XMMO - Expense Ratio Comparison

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


Dividends

RFV vs. XMMO - Dividend Comparison

RFV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.62%, more than XMMO's 0.63% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
RFV
Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Value ETF
1.62%2.07%1.31%1.27%2.05%1.60%1.52%1.71%1.39%1.36%0.88%1.79%
XMMO
Invesco S&P MidCap Momentum ETF
0.63%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


RFV and XMMO have a correlation of 0.55, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

XMMO has higher volatility (7.88%) compared to RFV (3.27%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RFV dropped -71.82% vs XMMO's -55.37%.

On 10-year performance, XMMO leads with 18.04% vs 12.60% for RFV. Both ETFs have the same 0.35% expense ratio. On volatility, RFV has been the lower-risk option at 3.27%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, XMMO has performed better with a 18.04% return vs 12.60%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

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

RFV has the higher dividend yield at 1.62%, compared with 0.63% for XMMO.

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

RFV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.41 vs 0.89), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for RFV and XMMO

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer