RSMC vs. RFG
RSMC (Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF) and RFG (Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF) are both Small Cap Growth Equities funds. RSMC is actively managed, while RFG is passively managed. Over the past year, RSMC returned 18.15% vs 39.22% for RFG. Their correlation of 0.88 suggests significant overlap in exposure. RSMC charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for RFG.
Performance
RSMC vs. RFG - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, RSMC achieves a 6.73% return, which is significantly lower than RFG's 12.28% return.
RSMC
- 1D
- 1.09%
- 1M
- 9.37%
- YTD
- 6.73%
- 6M
- 3.09%
- 1Y
- 18.15%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
RFG
- 1D
- 0.63%
- 1M
- 7.53%
- YTD
- 12.28%
- 6M
- 15.91%
- 1Y
- 39.22%
- 3Y*
- 17.41%
- 5Y*
- 5.72%
- 10Y*
- 9.74%
RSMC vs. RFG - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
RSMC Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF | 6.73% | -1.02% | 0.68% |
RFG Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF | 12.28% | 8.80% | -3.11% |
Correlation
The correlation between RSMC and RFG is 0.86, 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 | 0.86 |
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 14, 2024 | 0.88 |
The correlation between RSMC and RFG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.86 to 0.88 — a consistent structural relationship.
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
RSMC vs. RFG — Risk / Return Rank
RSMC
RFG
RSMC vs. RFG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison
This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF (RSMC) and Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF (RFG). 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.
| RSMC | RFG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 1.03 | 2.12 | -1.08 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 1.55 | 2.97 | -1.42 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.19 | 1.36 | -0.18 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.99 | 4.16 | -2.17 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 6.00 | 17.14 | -11.14 |
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month. | |||
Loading graphics...
Sharpe Ratios by Period
| RSMC | RFG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.03 | 2.12 | -1.08 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.25 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.43 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.20 | 0.41 | -0.21 |
Drawdowns
RSMC vs. RFG - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum RSMC drawdown since its inception was -22.33%, smaller than the maximum RFG drawdown of -51.93%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RSMC and RFG.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| RSMC | RFG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -22.33% | -51.93% | +29.60% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -10.49% | -10.41% | -0.08% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -35.16% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -42.92% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.85% | -0.25% | -0.60% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -5.61% | -9.02% | +3.41% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.48% | 2.52% | +0.96% |
Volatility
RSMC vs. RFG - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF (RSMC) is 5.90%, while Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF (RFG) has a volatility of 7.88%. This indicates that RSMC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RFG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| RSMC | RFG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.90% | 7.88% | -1.98% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 13.22% | 14.34% | -1.12% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 17.75% | 18.71% | -0.96% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 20.81% | 22.78% | -1.97% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 20.81% | 22.99% | -2.18% |
RSMC vs. RFG - Expense Ratio Comparison
RSMC has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than RFG's 0.35% expense ratio.
Dividends
RSMC vs. RFG - Dividend Comparison
RSMC has not paid dividends to shareholders, while RFG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.34%.
| TTM | 2025 | 2024 | 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
RSMC Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% | 0.00% |
RFG Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF | 0.34% | 0.43% | 0.38% | 0.99% | 0.78% | 0.05% | 0.27% | 0.64% | 0.76% | 0.66% | 0.35% | 0.61% |