RPG vs. DARP

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

RPG (Invesco S&P 500 Pure Growth ETF) and DARP (Grizzle Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. RPG is passively managed, while DARP is actively managed. Over the past year, RPG returned 24.43% vs 53.03% for DARP. Their correlation of 0.81 means they have usually moved in the same direction. RPG charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.75%/yr for DARP.

Performance

RPG vs. DARP - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P 500 Pure Growth ETF (RPG) and Grizzle Growth ETF (DARP). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RPG achieves a 22.47% return, which is significantly lower than DARP's 24.09% return.

RPG

• 1D: 2.09%
• 1M: -4.47%
• 6M: 15.17%
• YTD: 22.47%
• 1Y: 24.43%
• 3Y*: 22.95%
• 5Y*: 8.30%
• 10Y*: 13.52%
• ALL TIME*: 11.65%

DARP

• 1D: 2.48%
• 1M: -1.50%
• 6M: 11.54%
• YTD: 24.09%
• 1Y: 53.03%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 32.92%

*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)
DARP Grizzle Growth ETF	$367.14K	$288.77K	$436.18K
RPG Invesco S&P 500 Pure Growth ETF	$42.21M	$42.12M	$41.16M

RPG vs. DARP - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
RPG Invesco S&P 500 Pure Growth ETF	22.47%	13.41%	28.23%	5.58%
DARP Grizzle Growth ETF	24.09%	40.19%	24.63%	6.25%

Correlation

The correlation between RPG and DARP is 0.83, 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.	0.83
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Aug 28, 2023	0.81

The correlation between RPG and DARP has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.81 to 0.83 - a consistent structural relationship.

RPG vs. DARP - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RPG	DARP
Technology	47.7%	48.3%
Industrials	15.7%	8.2%
Consumer Cyclical	14.4%	8.3%
Communication Services	7.0%	13.5%
Healthcare	6.2%	1.4%
Financial Services	5.0%	-
Energy	1.5%	9.2%
Consumer Defensive	1.1%	-
Basic Materials	1.1%	4.2%
Real Estate	1.0%	-
Utilities	1.0%	5.2%

Return for Risk

RPG vs. DARP — Risk / Return Rank

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

RPG

RPG Risk / Return Rank: 41
RPG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
RPG Sortino Ratio Rank: 39
RPG Omega Ratio Rank: 38
RPG Calmar Ratio Rank: 40
RPG Martin Ratio Rank: 50

DARP

DARP Risk / Return Rank: 80
DARP Sharpe Ratio Rank: 82
DARP Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
DARP Omega Ratio Rank: 72
DARP Calmar Ratio Rank: 85
DARP Martin Ratio Rank: 86

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.

RPG vs. DARP - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P 500 Pure Growth ETF (RPG) and Grizzle Growth ETF (DARP). 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.

	RPG	DARP	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.99	1.99	-1.00
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.47	2.47	-1.00
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.19	1.31	-0.13
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.46	3.38	-1.92
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.95	12.79	-6.84

RPG vs. DARP - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RPG Sharpe Ratio is 0.99, which is lower than the DARP Sharpe Ratio of 1.99. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RPG and DARP, 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

RPG vs. DARP - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RPG drawdown since its inception was -53.27%, which is greater than DARP's maximum drawdown of -30.27%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RPG and DARP.

Drawdown Indicators

	RPG	DARP	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-53.27%	-30.27%	-23.00%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-16.84%	-15.76%	-1.08%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-24.75%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-35.59%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-36.58%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-10.54%	-7.17%	-3.37%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-8.82%	-4.72%	-4.10%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	4.12%	4.16%	-0.04%

Volatility

RPG vs. DARP - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P 500 Pure Growth ETF (RPG) has a higher volatility of 10.41% compared to Grizzle Growth ETF (DARP) at 9.89%. This indicates that RPG's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than DARP based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RPG	DARP	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	10.41%	9.89%	+0.52%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	22.12%	21.41%	+0.71%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	24.92%	26.90%	-1.98%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	24.43%	26.84%	-2.41%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	23.18%	26.84%	-3.66%

RPG vs. DARP - Expense Ratio Comparison

RPG has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than DARP's 0.75% expense ratio.

Dividends

RPG vs. DARP - Dividend Comparison

RPG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.16%, less than DARP's 0.35% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
DARP Grizzle Growth ETF	0.35%	0.43%	1.93%	0.32%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RPG Invesco S&P 500 Pure Growth ETF	0.16%	0.24%	0.25%	1.44%	0.74%	0.00%	0.46%	0.83%	0.47%	0.56%	0.43%	0.73%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RPG and DARP in my portfolio?

RPG and DARP have a correlation of 0.83, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RPG or DARP?

RPG has higher volatility (10.41%) compared to DARP (9.89%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RPG dropped -53.27% vs DARP's -30.27%.

Which ETF is better, RPG or DARP?

On 1-year performance, DARP leads with 53.03% vs 24.43% for RPG. On fees, RPG is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, DARP has been the lower-risk option at 9.89%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RPG or DARP?

Over the 1-year period, DARP has performed better with a 53.03% return vs 24.43%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RPG or DARP?

RPG is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for DARP.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RPG or DARP?

DARP has the higher dividend yield at 0.35%, compared with 0.16% for RPG.

What is the main difference between RPG and DARP?

They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Grizzle. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for RPG and 0.75% for DARP.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

DARP currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.99 vs 0.99), 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.