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

Performance

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

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

The year-to-date returns for both stocks are quite close, with RFV having a 18.18% return and XMVM slightly lower at 18.13%. Both investments have delivered pretty close results over the past 10 years, with RFV having a 12.33% annualized return and XMVM not far behind at 12.28%.


RFV

1D
0.22%
1M
5.08%
6M
11.72%
YTD
18.18%
1Y
27.48%
3Y*
14.02%
5Y*
12.58%
10Y*
12.33%
ALL TIME*
9.97%

XMVM

1D
0.59%
1M
5.73%
6M
13.53%
YTD
18.13%
1Y
39.09%
3Y*
18.08%
5Y*
12.87%
10Y*
12.28%
ALL TIME*
9.73%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison


PositionAvg. Volume Value (2W)Avg. Volume Value (1M)Avg. Volume Value (3M)
$968.97K$1.02M$751.20K
$2.19M$2.07M$1.98M

RFV vs. XMVM - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)202520242023202220212020201920182017
RFV
Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Value ETF
18.18%7.66%5.63%30.26%-3.99%33.02%9.61%24.98%-18.56%14.74%
XMVM
Invesco S&P MidCap Value with Momentum ETF
18.13%18.46%11.73%16.31%-8.21%35.15%5.68%30.38%-9.62%2.79%

Correlation

The correlation between RFV and XMVM is 0.81, meaning they have usually moved in the same direction, including during past declines.


Correlation
Correlation (1Y)
Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.

0.81

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

0.88

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

0.92

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

0.90

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

0.87

The correlation between RFV and XMVM shifts across timeframes, from 0.81 (1 year) to 0.92 (5 years), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

RFV vs. XMVM - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
RFV
XMVM

Consumer Cyclical

24.8%
14.8%

Financial Services

17.8%
37.9%

Energy

13.8%
13.5%

Technology

11.8%
5.1%

Industrials

11.0%
11.7%

Basic Materials

6.6%
0.8%

Consumer Defensive

6.2%
1.2%

Real Estate

3.8%
4.9%

Healthcare

2.4%
2.5%

Communication Services

1.8%
0.9%

Utilities

-

8.5%

Consumer Cyclical

RFV
24.8%
XMVM
14.8%

Financial Services

RFV
17.8%
XMVM
37.9%

Energy

RFV
13.8%
XMVM
13.5%

Technology

RFV
11.8%
XMVM
5.1%

Industrials

RFV
11.0%
XMVM
11.7%

Basic Materials

RFV
6.6%
XMVM
0.8%

Consumer Defensive

RFV
6.2%
XMVM
1.2%

Real Estate

RFV
3.8%
XMVM
4.9%

Healthcare

RFV
2.4%
XMVM
2.5%

Communication Services

RFV
1.8%
XMVM
0.9%

Utilities

RFV

-

XMVM
8.5%

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. XMVM — Risk / Return Rank

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

RFV
RFV Risk / Return Rank: 6666
Overall Rank
RFV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 7070
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RFV Sortino Ratio Rank: 7474
Sortino Ratio Rank
RFV Omega Ratio Rank: 6767
Omega Ratio Rank
RFV Calmar Ratio Rank: 6161
Calmar Ratio Rank
RFV Martin Ratio Rank: 5757
Martin Ratio Rank

XMVM
XMVM Risk / Return Rank: 9292
Overall Rank
XMVM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 9494
Sharpe Ratio Rank
XMVM Sortino Ratio Rank: 9494
Sortino Ratio Rank
XMVM Omega Ratio Rank: 9393
Omega Ratio Rank
XMVM Calmar Ratio Rank: 9292
Calmar Ratio Rank
XMVM Martin Ratio Rank: 8888
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. XMVM - 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 Value with Momentum ETF (XMVM). 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.


RFVXMVMDifference
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility

-1.03

Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk

-1.36

Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability

1.29

1.48

-0.18

Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown

2.21

4.28

-2.07

Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown

7.01

13.71

-6.70

RFV vs. XMVM - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RFV Sharpe Ratio is 1.64, which is lower than the XMVM Sharpe Ratio of 2.67. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RFV and XMVM, 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. XMVM - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RFV drawdown since its inception was -71.82%, which is greater than XMVM's maximum drawdown of -62.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RFV and XMVM.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


RFVXMVMDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-71.82%

-62.83%

-8.99%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-12.51%

-9.18%

-3.33%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-24.65%

-24.12%

-0.53%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-24.65%

-24.12%

-0.53%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-52.24%

-45.07%

-7.17%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-0.78%

-0.12%

-0.66%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-9.72%

-10.19%

+0.47%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

3.93%

2.86%

+1.07%

Volatility

RFV vs. XMVM - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Value ETF (RFV) and Invesco S&P MidCap Value with Momentum ETF (XMVM) have volatilities of 3.24% and 3.30%, 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.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


RFVXMVMDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.24%

3.30%

-0.06%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

11.17%

9.25%

+1.92%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

16.82%

14.72%

+2.10%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

21.77%

21.24%

+0.53%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

24.84%

22.74%

+2.10%

RFV vs. XMVM - Expense Ratio Comparison

RFV has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than XMVM's 0.39% expense ratio.


Dividends

RFV vs. XMVM - Dividend Comparison

RFV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.61%, less than XMVM's 1.78% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
RFV
Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Value ETF
1.61%2.07%1.31%1.27%2.05%1.60%1.52%1.71%1.39%1.36%0.88%1.79%
XMVM
Invesco S&P MidCap Value with Momentum ETF
1.78%2.07%1.43%1.57%1.76%1.10%1.37%1.73%2.87%2.22%2.27%2.58%

Frequently Asked Questions


RFV and XMVM have a correlation of 0.81, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

XMVM has higher volatility (3.30%) compared to RFV (3.24%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RFV dropped -71.82% vs XMVM's -62.83%.

On 10-year performance, RFV leads with 12.33% vs 12.28% for XMVM. On fees, RFV is cheaper at 0.35% per year. Their volatility is very similar. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 10-year period, RFV has performed better with a 12.33% return vs 12.28%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

RFV is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.39% for XMVM.

XMVM has the higher dividend yield at 1.78%, compared with 1.61% for RFV.

RFV is categorized as Mid Cap Value Equities, while XMVM is Momentum. RFV tracks S&P MidCap 400 Pure Value Index, while XMVM tracks S&P MidCap 400 High Momentum Value Index. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for RFV and 0.39% for XMVM.

XMVM currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.67 vs 1.64), 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 XMVM

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