RSMV vs. RPG

Last updated Jun 23, 2026

RSMV (Relative Strength Managed Volatility Strategy ETF) and RPG (Invesco S&P 500 Pure Growth ETF) are both Large Cap Growth Equities funds. RSMV is actively managed, while RPG is passively managed. Over the past year, RSMV returned 27.01% vs 47.03% for RPG. A 0.80 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RSMV charges 0.95%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for RPG.

Performance

RSMV vs. RPG - Performance Comparison

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

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RSMV achieves a 10.03% return, which is significantly lower than RPG's 36.60% return.

RSMV

• 1D: 0.67%
• 1M: 3.73%
• YTD: 10.03%
• 6M: 9.46%
• 1Y: 27.01%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RPG

• 1D: 1.57%
• 1M: 10.57%
• YTD: 36.60%
• 6M: 33.46%
• 1Y: 47.03%
• 3Y*: 29.74%
• 5Y*: 12.84%
• 10Y*: 15.68%

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

RSMV vs. RPG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
RSMV Relative Strength Managed Volatility Strategy ETF	10.03%	10.74%
RPG Invesco S&P 500 Pure Growth ETF	36.60%	12.62%

Correlation

The correlation between RSMV and RPG is 0.80, 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	0.80
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jan 14, 2025	0.80

The correlation between RSMV and RPG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.80 to 0.80 - a consistent structural relationship.

RSMV vs. RPG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RSMV	RPG
Technology	47.8%	46.9%
Consumer Defensive	12.9%	1.1%
Financial Services	11.3%	5.3%
Consumer Cyclical	7.4%	14.7%
Industrials	7.1%	14.0%
Communication Services	6.7%	5.4%
Energy	5.0%	1.6%
Healthcare	3.5%	6.4%
Basic Materials	3.4%	1.2%
Utilities	2.6%	2.4%
Real Estate	-	1.0%

Return for Risk

RSMV vs. RPG — Risk / Return Rank

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

RSMV

RSMV Risk / Return Rank: 68
RSMV Sharpe Ratio Rank: 66
RSMV Sortino Ratio Rank: 62
RSMV Omega Ratio Rank: 65
RSMV Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
RSMV Martin Ratio Rank: 75

RPG

RPG Risk / Return Rank: 73
RPG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 70
RPG Sortino Ratio Rank: 66
RPG Omega Ratio Rank: 65
RPG Calmar Ratio Rank: 83
RPG Martin Ratio Rank: 83

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.

RSMV vs. RPG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Relative Strength Managed Volatility Strategy ETF (RSMV) and Invesco S&P 500 Pure Growth ETF (RPG). 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.

	RSMV	RPG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.09	2.19	-0.10
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.82	2.91	-0.09
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.38	1.38	0.00
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.73	4.27	-0.54
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	13.61	16.15	-2.55

RSMV vs. RPG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RSMV Sharpe Ratio is 2.09, which is comparable to the RPG Sharpe Ratio of 2.19. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RSMV and RPG, 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

RSMV vs. RPG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RSMV drawdown since its inception was -17.58%, smaller than the maximum RPG drawdown of -53.27%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RSMV and RPG.

Drawdown Indicators

	RSMV	RPG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-17.58%	-53.27%	+35.69%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-7.27%	-11.08%	+3.81%
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	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-3.90%	-8.83%	+4.93%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.99%	2.92%	-0.93%

Volatility

RSMV vs. RPG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Relative Strength Managed Volatility Strategy ETF (RSMV) is 6.05%, while Invesco S&P 500 Pure Growth ETF (RPG) has a volatility of 9.89%. This indicates that RSMV experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than RPG based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RSMV	RPG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	6.05%	9.89%	-3.84%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.00%	18.39%	-7.39%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	13.02%	21.61%	-8.59%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	14.99%	23.77%	-8.78%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	14.99%	22.88%	-7.89%

RSMV vs. RPG - Expense Ratio Comparison

RSMV has a 0.95% expense ratio, which is higher than RPG's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

RSMV vs. RPG - Dividend Comparison

RSMV's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 0.91%, more than RPG's 0.19% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
RPG Invesco S&P 500 Pure Growth ETF	0.19%	0.24%	0.25%	1.44%	0.74%	0.00%	0.46%	0.83%	0.47%	0.56%	0.43%	0.73%
RSMV Relative Strength Managed Volatility Strategy ETF	0.91%	1.00%	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 RSMV and RPG in my portfolio?

RSMV and RPG have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RSMV or RPG?

RPG has higher volatility (9.89%) compared to RSMV (6.05%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RSMV dropped -17.58% vs RPG's -53.27%.

Which ETF is better, RSMV or RPG?

On 1-year performance, RPG leads with 47.03% vs 27.01% for RSMV. On fees, RPG is cheaper at 0.35% per year. On volatility, RSMV has been the lower-risk option at 6.05%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RSMV or RPG?

Over the 1-year period, RPG has performed better with a 47.03% return vs 27.01%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RSMV or RPG?

RPG is cheaper with a 0.35% expense ratio, compared with 0.95% for RSMV.

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

RSMV has the higher dividend yield at 0.91%, compared with 0.19% for RPG.

What is the main difference between RSMV and RPG?

They also come from different issuers: Teucrium and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.95% for RSMV and 0.35% for RPG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RPG currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.19 vs 2.09), 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.