PortfoliosLab logoPortfoliosLab logo
RSPC vs. RWL
Performance
Return for Risk
Drawdowns
Volatility
Dividends

Performance

RSPC vs. RWL - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Communication Services ETF (RSPC) and Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF (RWL). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Loading charts...

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RSPC achieves a -5.64% return, which is significantly lower than RWL's 11.54% return.


RSPC

1D
-1.68%
1M
-2.04%
YTD
-5.64%
6M
-2.98%
1Y
5.03%
3Y*
12.63%
5Y*
0.54%
10Y*

RWL

1D
-0.16%
1M
3.00%
YTD
11.54%
6M
12.61%
1Y
28.01%
3Y*
20.12%
5Y*
13.07%
10Y*
14.01%
*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

RSPC vs. RWL - Yearly Performance Comparison


2026 (YTD)20252024202320222021202020192018
RSPC
Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Communication Services ETF
-5.64%18.44%17.98%17.92%-29.00%14.55%22.14%21.35%-11.38%
RWL
Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF
11.54%18.65%16.45%17.43%-6.00%30.29%9.14%27.83%-8.85%

Correlation

The correlation between RSPC and RWL is 0.54, 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

0.54

Correlation (3Y)
Calculated over the trailing 3-year period

0.66

Correlation (5Y)
Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.73

Correlation (All Time)
Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 15, 2018

0.75

Over the past year, the correlation between RSPC and RWL has dropped to 0.54 - well below their long-term average of 0.75, suggesting their price drivers have been diverging.

RSPC vs. RWL - Sectors Allocation Comparison


Sectors
RSPC
RWL

Communication Services

94.8%
7.5%

Technology

5.1%
13.7%

Financial Services

0.0%
15.4%

Basic Materials

-

2.1%

Consumer Cyclical

-

12.3%

Consumer Defensive

-

11.1%

Energy

-

6.6%

Healthcare

-

19.5%

Industrials

-

8.6%

Real Estate

-

0.9%

Utilities

-

2.4%

Communication Services

RSPC
94.8%
RWL
7.5%

Technology

RSPC
5.1%
RWL
13.7%

Financial Services

RSPC
0.0%
RWL
15.4%

Basic Materials

RSPC

-

RWL
2.1%

Consumer Cyclical

RSPC

-

RWL
12.3%

Consumer Defensive

RSPC

-

RWL
11.1%

Energy

RSPC

-

RWL
6.6%

Healthcare

RSPC

-

RWL
19.5%

Industrials

RSPC

-

RWL
8.6%

Real Estate

RSPC

-

RWL
0.9%

Utilities

RSPC

-

RWL
2.4%

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

RSPC vs. RWL — Risk / Return Rank

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

RSPC
RSPC Risk / Return Rank: 1414
Overall Rank
RSPC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 1414
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RSPC Sortino Ratio Rank: 1414
Sortino Ratio Rank
RSPC Omega Ratio Rank: 1414
Omega Ratio Rank
RSPC Calmar Ratio Rank: 1414
Calmar Ratio Rank
RSPC Martin Ratio Rank: 1313
Martin Ratio Rank

RWL
RWL Risk / Return Rank: 8484
Overall Rank
RWL Sharpe Ratio Rank: 8585
Sharpe Ratio Rank
RWL Sortino Ratio Rank: 8686
Sortino Ratio Rank
RWL Omega Ratio Rank: 8282
Omega Ratio Rank
RWL Calmar Ratio Rank: 8181
Calmar Ratio Rank
RWL Martin Ratio Rank: 8585
Martin Ratio Rank
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.

RSPC vs. RWL - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Communication Services ETF (RSPC) and Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF (RWL). 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.


RSPCRWLDifference

Sharpe ratio

Return per unit of total volatility

0.37

2.82

-2.44

Sortino ratio

Return per unit of downside risk

0.62

3.92

-3.30

Omega ratio

Gain probability vs. loss probability

1.07

1.50

-0.43

Calmar ratio

Return relative to maximum drawdown

0.45

4.26

-3.81

Martin ratio

Return relative to average drawdown

0.95

18.04

-17.09

RSPC vs. RWL - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RSPC Sharpe Ratio is 0.37, which is lower than the RWL Sharpe Ratio of 2.82. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RSPC and RWL, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.


Loading charts...

Sharpe Ratios by Period


RSPCRWLDifference

Sharpe Ratio (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

0.37

2.82

-2.44

Sharpe Ratio (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period

0.03

0.91

-0.88

Sharpe Ratio (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period

0.83

Sharpe Ratio (All Time)

Calculated using the full available price history

0.34

0.58

-0.24

Drawdowns

RSPC vs. RWL - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RSPC drawdown since its inception was -38.03%, smaller than the maximum RWL drawdown of -54.83%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RSPC and RWL.


Loading charts...

Drawdown Indicators


RSPCRWLDifference

Max Drawdown

Largest peak-to-trough decline

-38.03%

-54.83%

+16.80%

Max Drawdown (1Y)

Largest decline over 1 year

-10.92%

-6.64%

-4.28%

Max Drawdown (3Y)

Largest decline over 3 years

-14.06%

-14.39%

+0.33%

Max Drawdown (5Y)

Largest decline over 5 years

-37.96%

-17.49%

-20.47%

Max Drawdown (10Y)

Largest decline over 10 years

-36.04%

Current Drawdown

Current decline from peak

-8.55%

-0.16%

-8.39%

Average Drawdown

Average peak-to-trough decline

-12.71%

-6.45%

-6.26%

Ulcer Index

Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks

5.22%

1.57%

+3.65%

Volatility

RSPC vs. RWL - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Communication Services ETF (RSPC) has a higher volatility of 3.53% compared to Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF (RWL) at 2.16%. This indicates that RSPC's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than RWL based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.


Loading charts...

Volatility by Period


RSPCRWLDifference

Volatility (1M)

Calculated over the trailing 1-month period

3.53%

2.16%

+1.37%

Volatility (6M)

Calculated over the trailing 6-month period

9.07%

7.14%

+1.93%

Volatility (1Y)

Calculated over the trailing 1-year period

13.54%

9.99%

+3.55%

Volatility (5Y)

Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized

18.54%

14.50%

+4.04%

Volatility (10Y)

Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized

20.77%

16.86%

+3.91%

RSPC vs. RWL - Expense Ratio Comparison

RSPC has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is higher than RWL's 0.39% expense ratio.


Dividends

RSPC vs. RWL - Dividend Comparison

RSPC's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.72%, more than RWL's 1.24% yield.


PositionTTM20252024202320222021202020192018201720162015
RSPC
Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Communication Services ETF
1.72%1.66%1.03%0.98%1.45%1.10%1.05%0.90%0.24%0.00%0.00%0.00%
RWL
Invesco S&P 500 Revenue ETF
1.24%1.35%1.43%1.60%1.62%1.35%1.75%1.87%1.99%1.60%1.71%1.97%

Frequently Asked Questions


RSPC and RWL have a correlation of 0.54, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

RSPC has higher volatility (3.53%) compared to RWL (2.16%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RSPC dropped -38.03% vs RWL's -54.83%.

On 5-year performance, RWL leads with 13.07% vs 0.54% for RSPC. On fees, RWL is cheaper at 0.39% per year. On volatility, RWL has been the lower-risk option at 2.16%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Over the 5-year period, RWL has performed better with a 13.07% return vs 0.54%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

RWL is cheaper with a 0.39% expense ratio, compared with 0.40% for RSPC.

RSPC has the higher dividend yield at 1.72%, compared with 1.24% for RWL.

RSPC is categorized as Communications Equities, while RWL is S&P 500. RSPC tracks S&P 500 Equal Weight Communication Services Plus Index, while RWL tracks S&P 500 Revenue-Weighted Index. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for RSPC and 0.39% for RWL.

RWL currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (2.82 vs 0.37), 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.

Portfolio Optimizer

Find the right allocation for RSPC and RWL

Add both to a portfolio and optimize allocations for your target — whether that's maximizing returns, minimizing drawdowns, or balancing risk across holdings.

Open Portfolio Optimizer