RSMC vs. RFG

Last updated Jun 4, 2026

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 10.02% vs 32.96% for RFG. Their correlation of 0.87 suggests significant overlap in exposure. RSMC charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for RFG.

Performance

RSMC vs. RFG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF (RSMC) and Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF (RFG). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RSMC achieves a 10.85% return, which is significantly lower than RFG's 22.14% return.

RSMC

• 1D: -0.07%
• 1M: 2.49%
• YTD: 10.85%
• 6M: 8.72%
• 1Y: 10.02%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RFG

• 1D: 0.61%
• 1M: 7.30%
• YTD: 22.14%
• 6M: 21.89%
• 1Y: 32.96%
• 3Y*: 20.57%
• 5Y*: 8.63%
• 10Y*: 10.49%

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

RSMC vs. RFG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
RSMC Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF	10.85%	-1.02%	0.68%
RFG Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF	22.14%	8.80%	-3.11%

Correlation

The correlation between RSMC and RFG is 0.83, 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	0.83
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 14, 2024	0.87

The correlation between RSMC and RFG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.83 to 0.87 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

RSMC vs. RFG — Risk / Return Rank

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

RSMC

RSMC Risk / Return Rank: 21
RSMC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 19
RSMC Sortino Ratio Rank: 19
RSMC Omega Ratio Rank: 19
RSMC Calmar Ratio Rank: 22
RSMC Martin Ratio Rank: 23

RFG

RFG Risk / Return Rank: 57
RFG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 52
RFG Sortino Ratio Rank: 52
RFG Omega Ratio Rank: 49
RFG Calmar Ratio Rank: 65
RFG Martin Ratio Rank: 69

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.

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 ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.59	1.79	-1.20
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.95	2.55	-1.60
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.11	1.31	-0.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.96	3.18	-2.22
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	2.87	12.89	-10.02
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

RSMC vs. RFG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RSMC Sharpe Ratio is 0.59, which is lower than the RFG Sharpe Ratio of 1.79. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RSMC and RFG, 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

	RSMC	RFG	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.59	1.79	-1.20
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	—	0.38	—
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.46	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	0.31	0.43	-0.12

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.

Drawdown Indicators

	RSMC	RFG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest 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 (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	—	-26.71%	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	—	-35.16%	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-42.92%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-2.03%	0.00%	-2.03%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-5.26%	-8.97%	+3.71%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.50%	2.56%	+0.94%

Volatility

RSMC vs. RFG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF (RSMC) is 4.81%, while Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF (RFG) has a volatility of 6.50%. 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.

Volatility by Period

	RSMC	RFG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.81%	6.50%	-1.69%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	12.36%	14.72%	-2.36%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.16%	18.53%	-1.37%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	20.38%	22.81%	-2.43%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	20.38%	23.05%	-2.67%

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 0.31%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
RFG Invesco S&P MidCap 400® Pure Growth ETF	0.31%	0.43%	0.38%	0.99%	0.78%	0.05%	0.27%	0.64%	0.76%	0.66%	0.35%	0.61%
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%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RSMC and RFG in my portfolio?

RSMC and RFG 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, RSMC or RFG?

RFG has higher volatility (6.50%) compared to RSMC (4.81%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RSMC dropped -22.33% vs RFG's -51.93%.

Which ETF is better, RSMC or RFG?

On 1-year performance, RFG leads with 32.96% vs 10.02% for RSMC. On fees, RFG is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, RSMC has been the lower-risk option at 4.81%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RSMC or RFG?

Over the 1-year period, RFG has performed better with a 32.96% return vs 10.02%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RSMC or RFG?

RFG is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.75% for RSMC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RSMC or RFG?

RFG has the higher dividend yield at 0.31%, compared with 0.00% for RSMC.

What is the main difference between RSMC and RFG?

They also come from different issuers: Rockefeller and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.75% for RSMC and 0.35% for RFG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RFG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.79 vs 0.59), 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.