RNMC vs. CZA

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RNMC (First Trust Mid Cap US Equity Select ETF) and CZA (Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF) are both Mid Cap Blend Equities funds - RNMC tracks the Nasdaq Riskalyze Mid Cap US Equity Select Index while CZA tracks the Zacks Mid-Cap Core Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, RNMC returned 4.93%/yr vs 6.64%/yr for CZA. Their correlation of 0.86 suggests significant overlap in exposure. RNMC charges 0.60%/yr vs 0.69%/yr for CZA.

Performance

RNMC vs. CZA - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in First Trust Mid Cap US Equity Select ETF (RNMC) and Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RNMC achieves a -1.53% return, which is significantly lower than CZA's 5.97% return.

RNMC

• 1D: -0.01%
• 1M: -1.54%
• YTD: -1.53%
• 6M: -1.11%
• 1Y: -1.10%
• 3Y*: 9.79%
• 5Y*: 4.93%
• 10Y*: —

CZA

• 1D: -0.24%
• 1M: 1.90%
• YTD: 5.97%
• 6M: 6.65%
• 1Y: 13.18%
• 3Y*: 12.55%
• 5Y*: 6.64%
• 10Y*: 10.10%

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

RNMC vs. CZA - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017
RNMC First Trust Mid Cap US Equity Select ETF	-1.53%	1.77%	14.98%	16.81%	-9.11%	26.08%	5.71%	28.00%	-12.85%	10.74%
CZA Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF	5.97%	8.31%	12.14%	7.00%	-5.91%	27.42%	0.35%	32.27%	-8.89%	10.49%

Correlation

The correlation between RNMC and CZA is 0.90, 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	0.90
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.91
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.90
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 23, 2017	0.86

The correlation between RNMC and CZA has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.86 to 0.91 - a consistent structural relationship.

RNMC vs. CZA - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RNMC	CZA
Industrials	20.0%	16.0%
Consumer Cyclical	16.4%	6.2%
Financial Services	14.9%	23.8%
Healthcare	11.5%	12.6%
Technology	10.6%	10.5%
Real Estate	7.0%	10.5%
Basic Materials	5.0%	4.2%
Energy	5.0%	0.8%
Utilities	4.4%	10.6%
Communication Services	3.0%	-
Consumer Defensive	2.3%	2.9%

Return for Risk

RNMC vs. CZA — Risk / Return Rank

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

RNMC

RNMC Risk / Return Rank: 7
RNMC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8
RNMC Sortino Ratio Rank: 7
RNMC Omega Ratio Rank: 7
RNMC Calmar Ratio Rank: 7
RNMC Martin Ratio Rank: 7

CZA

CZA Risk / Return Rank: 30
CZA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 29
CZA Sortino Ratio Rank: 29
CZA Omega Ratio Rank: 27
CZA Calmar Ratio Rank: 29
CZA Martin Ratio Rank: 36

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.

RNMC vs. CZA - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for First Trust Mid Cap US Equity Select ETF (RNMC) and Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA). 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.

	RNMC	CZA	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	-0.09	1.04	-1.12
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	-0.04	1.59	-1.62
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.00	1.18	-0.19
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	-0.14	1.44	-1.58
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	-0.31	5.48	-5.79
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RNMC vs. CZA - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RNMC Sharpe Ratio is -0.09, which is lower than the CZA Sharpe Ratio of 1.04. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RNMC and CZA, 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

	RNMC	CZA	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	-0.09	1.04	-1.12
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.27	0.41	-0.14
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.53	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.39	0.48	-0.09

Drawdowns

RNMC vs. CZA - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RNMC drawdown since its inception was -43.57%, smaller than the maximum CZA drawdown of -53.20%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RNMC and CZA.

Drawdown Indicators

	RNMC	CZA	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-43.57%	-53.20%	+9.63%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.81%	-9.21%	+1.40%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-19.55%	-18.92%	-0.63%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-21.25%	-18.92%	-2.33%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-46.18%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-7.32%	-0.78%	-6.54%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.99%	-6.88%	+0.89%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.60%	2.41%	+1.19%

Volatility

RNMC vs. CZA - Volatility Comparison

First Trust Mid Cap US Equity Select ETF (RNMC) and Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF (CZA) have volatilities of 3.07% 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

	RNMC	CZA	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	3.07%	3.13%	-0.06%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.22%	9.30%	-1.08%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.70%	12.78%	-0.08%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.09%	16.14%	+1.95%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.20%	19.28%	+1.92%

RNMC vs. CZA - Expense Ratio Comparison

RNMC has a 0.60% expense ratio, which is lower than CZA's 0.69% expense ratio.

Dividends

RNMC vs. CZA - Dividend Comparison

RNMC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.91%, less than CZA's 1.47% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
CZA Invesco Zacks Mid-Cap ETF	1.47%	1.56%	1.27%	1.36%	1.71%	0.89%	1.42%	1.40%	1.27%	1.10%	1.87%	1.37%
RNMC First Trust Mid Cap US Equity Select ETF	0.91%	0.75%	1.12%	1.47%	1.71%	1.21%	1.33%	1.68%	1.67%	0.67%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RNMC and CZA in my portfolio?

With a correlation of 0.90, RNMC and CZA move almost identically. Holding both adds very little diversification - you're essentially doubling your position in the same market segment. Choosing one is usually more capital-efficient.

Which is riskier, RNMC or CZA?

CZA has higher volatility (3.13%) compared to RNMC (3.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RNMC dropped -43.57% vs CZA's -53.20%.

Which ETF is better, RNMC or CZA?

On 5-year performance, CZA leads with 6.64% vs 4.93% for RNMC. On fees, RNMC is cheaper at 0.60% 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, RNMC or CZA?

Over the 5-year period, CZA has performed better with a 6.64% return vs 4.93%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RNMC or CZA?

RNMC is cheaper with a 0.60% expense ratio, compared with 0.69% for CZA.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RNMC or CZA?

CZA has the higher dividend yield at 1.47%, compared with 0.91% for RNMC.

What is the main difference between RNMC and CZA?

RNMC tracks Nasdaq Riskalyze Mid Cap US Equity Select Index, while CZA tracks Zacks Mid-Cap Core Index. They also come from different issuers: First Trust and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.60% for RNMC and 0.69% for CZA.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

CZA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.04 vs -0.09), 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.