RSMC vs. RZG
RSMC (Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF) and RZG (Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF) are both Small Cap Growth Equities funds. RSMC is actively managed, while RZG is passively managed. Over the past year, RSMC returned 18.15% vs 39.77% for RZG. Their correlation of 0.89 suggests significant overlap in exposure. RSMC charges 0.75%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for RZG.
Performance
RSMC vs. RZG - Performance Comparison
Loading graphics...
Returns By Period
In the year-to-date period, RSMC achieves a 6.73% return, which is significantly lower than RZG's 13.92% return.
RSMC
- 1D
- 1.09%
- 1M
- 9.37%
- YTD
- 6.73%
- 6M
- 3.09%
- 1Y
- 18.15%
- 3Y*
- —
- 5Y*
- —
- 10Y*
- —
RZG
- 1D
- 1.04%
- 1M
- 11.37%
- YTD
- 13.92%
- 6M
- 13.74%
- 1Y
- 39.77%
- 3Y*
- 17.36%
- 5Y*
- 4.06%
- 10Y*
- 9.59%
RSMC vs. RZG - Yearly Performance Comparison
| 2026 (YTD) | 2025 | 2024 | |
|---|---|---|---|
RSMC Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF | 6.73% | -1.02% | 0.68% |
RZG Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF | 13.92% | 10.22% | -3.04% |
Correlation
The correlation between RSMC and RZG 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 (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Oct 14, 2024 | 0.89 |
The correlation between RSMC and RZG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.89 to 0.90 — 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. RZG — Risk / Return Rank
RSMC
RZG
RSMC vs. RZG - 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 SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF (RZG). 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 | RZG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe ratioReturn per unit of total volatility | 1.03 | 2.12 | -1.09 |
Sortino ratioReturn per unit of downside risk | 1.55 | 3.03 | -1.47 |
Omega ratioGain probability vs. loss probability | 1.19 | 1.36 | -0.17 |
Calmar ratioReturn relative to maximum drawdown | 1.99 | 5.08 | -3.09 |
Martin ratioReturn relative to average drawdown | 6.00 | 17.30 | -11.30 |
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 | RZG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Sharpe Ratio (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 1.03 | 2.12 | -1.09 |
Sharpe Ratio (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period | — | 0.18 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period | — | 0.39 | — |
Sharpe Ratio (All Time)Calculated using the full available price history | 0.20 | 0.37 | -0.16 |
Drawdowns
RSMC vs. RZG - Drawdown Comparison
The maximum RSMC drawdown since its inception was -22.33%, smaller than the maximum RZG drawdown of -58.52%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RSMC and RZG.
Loading graphics...
Drawdown Indicators
| RSMC | RZG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Max DrawdownLargest peak-to-trough decline | -22.33% | -58.52% | +36.19% |
Max Drawdown (1Y)Largest decline over 1 year | -10.49% | -8.63% | -1.86% |
Max Drawdown (5Y)Largest decline over 5 years | — | -38.33% | — |
Max Drawdown (10Y)Largest decline over 10 years | — | -54.02% | — |
Current DrawdownCurrent decline from peak | -0.85% | 0.00% | -0.85% |
Average DrawdownAverage peak-to-trough decline | -5.61% | -12.20% | +6.59% |
Ulcer IndexDepth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks | 3.48% | 2.53% | +0.95% |
Volatility
RSMC vs. RZG - Volatility Comparison
The current volatility for Rockefeller U.S. Small-Mid Cap ETF (RSMC) is 5.90%, while Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF (RZG) has a volatility of 7.76%. This indicates that RSMC experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RZG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.
Loading graphics...
Volatility by Period
| RSMC | RZG | Difference | |
|---|---|---|---|
Volatility (1M)Calculated over the trailing 1-month period | 5.90% | 7.76% | -1.86% |
Volatility (6M)Calculated over the trailing 6-month period | 13.22% | 14.31% | -1.09% |
Volatility (1Y)Calculated over the trailing 1-year period | 17.75% | 18.98% | -1.23% |
Volatility (5Y)Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized | 20.81% | 23.12% | -2.31% |
Volatility (10Y)Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized | 20.81% | 24.63% | -3.82% |
RSMC vs. RZG - Expense Ratio Comparison
RSMC has a 0.75% expense ratio, which is higher than RZG's 0.35% expense ratio.
Dividends
RSMC vs. RZG - Dividend Comparison
RSMC has not paid dividends to shareholders, while RZG's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.43%.
| 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% |
RZG Invesco S&P SmallCap 600® Pure Growth ETF | 0.43% | 0.37% | 0.95% | 1.43% | 1.59% | 0.22% | 0.49% | 0.70% | 0.46% | 0.44% | 0.65% | 0.70% |