RSPA vs. RPG

Last updated Jun 26, 2026

RSPA (Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Income Advantage ETF) and RPG (Invesco S&P 500 Pure Growth ETF) are both exchange-traded funds - RSPA is a S&P 500 fund tracking the S&P 500 Equal Weight Index, while RPG is a Large Cap Growth Equities fund tracking the S&P 500/Citigroup Pure Growth Index. Both are passively managed. Over the past year, RSPA returned 19.05% vs 41.69% for RPG. A 0.72 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RSPA charges 0.29%/yr vs 0.35%/yr for RPG.

Performance

RSPA vs. RPG - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Income Advantage ETF (RSPA) 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, RSPA achieves a 9.65% return, which is significantly lower than RPG's 34.97% return.

RSPA

• 1D: 0.51%
• 1M: 2.22%
• YTD: 9.65%
• 6M: 8.73%
• 1Y: 19.05%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

RPG

• 1D: 3.38%
• 1M: 6.35%
• YTD: 34.97%
• 6M: 31.79%
• 1Y: 41.69%
• 3Y*: 28.92%
• 5Y*: 12.35%
• 10Y*: 15.80%

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

RSPA vs. RPG - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
RSPA Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Income Advantage ETF	9.65%	11.07%	3.51%
RPG Invesco S&P 500 Pure Growth ETF	34.97%	13.41%	6.31%

Correlation

The correlation between RSPA and RPG is 0.70, 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	0.70
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jul 17, 2024	0.72

The correlation between RSPA and RPG has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.70 to 0.72 - a consistent structural relationship.

RSPA vs. RPG - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	RSPA	RPG
Financial Services	16.1%	5.3%
Technology	15.2%	46.9%
Industrials	11.1%	14.0%
Healthcare	8.3%	6.4%
Consumer Cyclical	7.8%	14.7%
Consumer Defensive	4.8%	1.1%
Utilities	4.5%	2.4%
Real Estate	4.5%	1.0%
Basic Materials	3.1%	1.2%
Energy	3.0%	1.6%
Communication Services	2.6%	5.4%

Return for Risk

RSPA vs. RPG — Risk / Return Rank

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

RSPA

RSPA Risk / Return Rank: 73
RSPA Sharpe Ratio Rank: 73
RSPA Sortino Ratio Rank: 74
RSPA Omega Ratio Rank: 70
RSPA Calmar Ratio Rank: 71
RSPA Martin Ratio Rank: 75

RPG

RPG Risk / Return Rank: 71
RPG Sharpe Ratio Rank: 67
RPG Sortino Ratio Rank: 62
RPG Omega Ratio Rank: 64
RPG Calmar Ratio Rank: 82
RPG Martin Ratio Rank: 82

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.

RSPA vs. RPG - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Income Advantage ETF (RSPA) 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.

	RSPA	RPG	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.01	1.88	+0.13
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.87	2.53	+0.35
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.36	1.33	+0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	3.08	3.78	-0.70
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	12.27	14.18	-1.91

RSPA vs. RPG - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RSPA Sharpe Ratio is 2.01, which is comparable to the RPG Sharpe Ratio of 1.88. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RSPA 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

RSPA vs. RPG - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RSPA drawdown since its inception was -15.37%, smaller than the maximum RPG drawdown of -53.27%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RSPA and RPG.

Drawdown Indicators

	RSPA	RPG	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-15.37%	-53.27%	+37.90%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-6.21%	-11.08%	+4.87%
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%	-1.19%	+1.19%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-2.00%	-8.82%	+6.82%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	1.56%	2.95%	-1.39%

Volatility

RSPA vs. RPG - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Income Advantage ETF (RSPA) is 2.73%, while Invesco S&P 500 Pure Growth ETF (RPG) has a volatility of 11.27%. This indicates that RSPA 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

	RSPA	RPG	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	2.73%	11.27%	-8.54%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	7.00%	19.21%	-12.21%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	9.51%	22.24%	-12.73%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	12.92%	23.91%	-10.99%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	12.92%	22.91%	-9.99%

RSPA vs. RPG - Expense Ratio Comparison

RSPA has a 0.29% expense ratio, which is lower than RPG's 0.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

RSPA vs. RPG - Dividend Comparison

RSPA's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 8.95%, more than RPG's 0.15% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
RPG Invesco S&P 500 Pure Growth ETF	0.15%	0.24%	0.25%	1.44%	0.74%	0.00%	0.46%	0.83%	0.47%	0.56%	0.43%	0.73%
RSPA Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Income Advantage ETF	8.95%	9.14%	4.03%	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 RSPA and RPG in my portfolio?

RSPA and RPG have a correlation of 0.70, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RSPA or RPG?

RPG has higher volatility (11.27%) compared to RSPA (2.73%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RSPA dropped -15.37% vs RPG's -53.27%.

Which ETF is better, RSPA or RPG?

On 1-year performance, RPG leads with 41.69% vs 19.05% for RSPA. On fees, RSPA is cheaper at 0.29% per year. On volatility, RSPA has been the lower-risk option at 2.73%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RSPA or RPG?

Over the 1-year period, RPG has performed better with a 41.69% return vs 19.05%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RSPA or RPG?

RSPA is cheaper with a 0.29% expense ratio, compared with 0.35% for RPG.

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

RSPA has the higher dividend yield at 8.95%, compared with 0.15% for RPG.

What is the main difference between RSPA and RPG?

RSPA is categorized as S&P 500, while RPG is Large Cap Growth Equities. RSPA tracks S&P 500 Equal Weight Index, while RPG tracks S&P 500/Citigroup Pure Growth Index. Their fees differ too: 0.29% for RSPA and 0.35% for RPG.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RSPA currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.01 vs 1.88), 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.