RPV vs. BGIG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

RPV (Invesco S&P 500® Pure Value ETF) and BGIG (Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Value Equities funds. RPV is passively managed, while BGIG is actively managed. Over the past year, RPV returned 27.41% vs 19.51% for BGIG. A 0.70 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RPV charges 0.35%/yr vs 0.45%/yr for BGIG.

Performance

RPV vs. BGIG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P 500® Pure Value ETF (RPV) and Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RPV achieves a 10.48% return, which is significantly higher than BGIG's 9.84% return.

RPV

• 1D: -0.60%
• 1M: 2.84%
• YTD: 10.48%
• 6M: 12.73%
• 1Y: 27.41%
• 3Y*: 18.14%
• 5Y*: 9.29%
• 10Y*: 10.64%

BGIG

• 1D: -0.23%
• 1M: 1.82%
• YTD: 9.84%
• 6M: 9.56%
• 1Y: 19.51%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RPV vs. BGIG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023
RPV Invesco S&P 500® Pure Value ETF	10.48%	17.70%	12.41%	8.70%
BGIG Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF	9.84%	12.49%	16.84%	4.55%

Correlation

The correlation between RPV and BGIG is 0.66, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.66
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Sep 18, 2023	0.71

The correlation between RPV and BGIG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.66 to 0.70 - a consistent structural relationship.

RPV vs. BGIG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RPV	BGIG
Financial Services	17.9%	14.8%
Healthcare	16.2%	14.6%
Consumer Defensive	15.2%	6.9%
Energy	11.3%	11.2%
Consumer Cyclical	10.2%	5.4%
Basic Materials	9.0%	0.6%
Industrials	6.3%	10.6%
Communication Services	5.7%	-
Utilities	4.0%	7.9%
Technology	2.8%	24.6%
Real Estate	1.4%	3.5%

Return for Risk

RPV vs. BGIG — Risk / Return Rank

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

RPV

RPV Risk / Return Rank: 66
RPV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 64
RPV Sortino Ratio Rank: 68
RPV Omega Ratio Rank: 61
RPV Calmar Ratio Rank: 70
RPV Martin Ratio Rank: 67

BGIG

BGIG Risk / Return Rank: 68
BGIG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
BGIG Sortino Ratio Rank: 69
BGIG Omega Ratio Rank: 65
BGIG Calmar Ratio Rank: 68
BGIG Martin Ratio Rank: 70

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.

RPV vs. BGIG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P 500® Pure Value ETF (RPV) and Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG). 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.

	RPV	BGIG	Difference
Sharpe ratio Return per unit of total volatility	2.19	2.18	+0.01
Sortino ratio Return per unit of downside risk	3.17	3.13	+0.04
Omega ratio Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.39	-0.01
Calmar ratio Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.56	3.37	+0.18
Martin ratio Return relative to average drawdown	12.45	12.97	-0.52
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RPV vs. BGIG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RPV Sharpe Ratio is 2.19, which is comparable to the BGIG Sharpe Ratio of 2.18. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RPV and BGIG, 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

	RPV	BGIG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	2.19	2.18	+0.01
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.52	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	0.49	—	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.38	1.38	-1.01

Drawdowns

RPV vs. BGIG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RPV drawdown since its inception was -75.32%, which is greater than BGIG's maximum drawdown of -13.24%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RPV and BGIG.

Drawdown Indicators

	RPV	BGIG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-75.32%	-13.24%	-62.08%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.74%	-5.81%	-1.93%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-15.50%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-22.64%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-50.67%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-0.60%	-0.28%	-0.32%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-10.69%	-1.70%	-8.99%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.21%	1.51%	+0.70%

Volatility

RPV vs. BGIG - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P 500® Pure Value ETF (RPV) and Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF (BGIG) have volatilities of 2.54% and 2.57%, 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

	RPV	BGIG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.54%	2.57%	-0.03%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	8.50%	6.72%	+1.78%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	12.63%	9.00%	+3.63%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	17.88%	11.94%	+5.94%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	21.92%	11.94%	+9.98%

RPV vs. BGIG - Expense Ratio Comparison

RPV has a 0.35% expense ratio, which is lower than BGIG's 0.45% expense ratio.

Dividends

RPV vs. BGIG - Dividend Comparison

RPV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 2.28%, more than BGIG's 1.75% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
BGIG Bahl & Gaynor Income Growth ETF	1.75%	1.89%	2.02%	0.78%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RPV Invesco S&P 500® Pure Value ETF	2.28%	2.50%	2.16%	2.38%	2.29%	1.92%	2.11%	2.28%	2.49%	1.73%	1.73%	2.39%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RPV and BGIG in my portfolio?

RPV and BGIG have a correlation of 0.66, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RPV or BGIG?

BGIG has higher volatility (2.57%) compared to RPV (2.54%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RPV dropped -75.32% vs BGIG's -13.24%.

Which ETF is better, RPV or BGIG?

On 1-year performance, RPV leads with 27.41% vs 19.51% for BGIG. On fees, RPV 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.

Which ETF has performed better, RPV or BGIG?

Over the 1-year period, RPV has performed better with a 27.41% return vs 19.51%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RPV or BGIG?

RPV is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.45% for BGIG.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RPV or BGIG?

RPV has the higher dividend yield at 2.28%, compared with 1.75% for BGIG.

What is the main difference between RPV and BGIG?

They also come from different issuers: Invesco and Bahl & Gaynor. Their fees differ too: 0.35% for RPV and 0.45% for BGIG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RPV currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.19 vs 2.18), 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.