RSPF vs. FBDC

Last updated Jul 14, 2026

RSPF (Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Financials ETF) and FBDC (FT Confluence BDC & Specialty Finance Income ETF) are both Financials Equities funds. RSPF is passively managed, while FBDC is actively managed. Over the past year, RSPF returned 9.31% vs -12.75% for FBDC. A 0.54 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. RSPF charges 0.40%/yr vs 1.35%/yr for FBDC.

Performance

RSPF vs. FBDC - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Financials ETF (RSPF) and FT Confluence BDC & Specialty Finance Income ETF (FBDC). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, RSPF achieves a 5.58% return, which is significantly higher than FBDC's -7.16% return.

RSPF

• 1D: 0.67%
• 1M: 6.12%
• 6M: 4.02%
• YTD: 5.58%
• 1Y: 9.31%
• 3Y*: 18.41%
• 5Y*: 8.79%
• 10Y*: 12.45%

FBDC

• 1D: -0.75%
• 1M: 0.63%
• 6M: -7.47%
• YTD: -7.16%
• 1Y: -12.75%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

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

RSPF vs. FBDC - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025
RSPF Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Financials ETF	5.58%	4.82%
FBDC FT Confluence BDC & Specialty Finance Income ETF	-7.16%	-2.66%

Correlation

The correlation between RSPF and FBDC is 0.55, 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	0.55
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 30, 2025	0.54

The correlation between RSPF and FBDC has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.54 to 0.55 - a consistent structural relationship.

Return for Risk

RSPF vs. FBDC — Risk / Return Rank

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

RSPF

RSPF Risk / Return Rank: 20
RSPF Sharpe Ratio Rank: 22
RSPF Sortino Ratio Rank: 20
RSPF Omega Ratio Rank: 20
RSPF Calmar Ratio Rank: 19
RSPF Martin Ratio Rank: 20

FBDC

FBDC Risk / Return Rank: 4
FBDC Sharpe Ratio Rank: 3
FBDC Sortino Ratio Rank: 4
FBDC Omega Ratio Rank: 4
FBDC Calmar Ratio Rank: 4
FBDC Martin Ratio Rank: 4

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.

RSPF vs. FBDC - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Financials ETF (RSPF) and FT Confluence BDC & Specialty Finance Income ETF (FBDC). 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.

	RSPF	FBDC	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.61	-0.71	+1.32
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	0.94	-0.93	+1.87
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.11	0.90	+0.22
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	0.66	-0.62	+1.28
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	1.81	-1.05	+2.86

RSPF vs. FBDC - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current RSPF Sharpe Ratio is 0.61, which is higher than the FBDC Sharpe Ratio of -0.71. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of RSPF and FBDC, 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

RSPF vs. FBDC - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum RSPF drawdown since its inception was -81.32%, which is greater than FBDC's maximum drawdown of -20.60%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for RSPF and FBDC.

Drawdown Indicators

	RSPF	FBDC	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-81.32%	-20.60%	-60.72%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-14.13%	-20.60%	+6.47%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-18.26%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-27.68%	—	—
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	-44.80%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	0.00%	-15.10%	+15.10%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-18.95%	-10.71%	-8.24%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	5.16%	12.14%	-6.98%

Volatility

RSPF vs. FBDC - Volatility Comparison

Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Financials ETF (RSPF) has a higher volatility of 4.53% compared to FT Confluence BDC & Specialty Finance Income ETF (FBDC) at 4.14%. This indicates that RSPF's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than FBDC based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	RSPF	FBDC	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	4.53%	4.14%	+0.39%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	11.72%	14.46%	-2.74%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	15.42%	17.98%	-2.56%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	19.73%	17.85%	+1.88%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	22.84%	17.85%	+4.99%

RSPF vs. FBDC - Expense Ratio Comparison

RSPF has a 0.40% expense ratio, which is lower than FBDC's 1.35% expense ratio.

Dividends

RSPF vs. FBDC - Dividend Comparison

RSPF's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.53%, less than FBDC's 12.38% yield.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
FBDC FT Confluence BDC & Specialty Finance Income ETF	12.38%	5.41%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
RSPF Invesco S&P 500 Equal Weight Financials ETF	1.53%	1.55%	1.65%	2.16%	1.95%	1.56%	2.24%	1.85%	2.51%	1.28%	37.55%	2.17%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both RSPF and FBDC in my portfolio?

RSPF and FBDC have a correlation of 0.55, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, RSPF or FBDC?

RSPF has higher volatility (4.53%) compared to FBDC (4.14%). In terms of maximum drawdown, RSPF dropped -81.32% vs FBDC's -20.60%.

Which ETF is better, RSPF or FBDC?

On 1-year performance, RSPF leads with 9.31% vs -12.75% for FBDC. On fees, RSPF is cheaper at 0.40% per year. On volatility, FBDC has been the lower-risk option at 4.14%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, RSPF or FBDC?

Over the 1-year period, RSPF has performed better with a 9.31% return vs -12.75%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, RSPF or FBDC?

RSPF is cheaper with a 0.40% expense ratio, compared with 1.35% for FBDC.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, RSPF or FBDC?

FBDC has the higher dividend yield at 12.38%, compared with 1.53% for RSPF.

What is the main difference between RSPF and FBDC?

They also come from different issuers: Invesco and First Trust. Their fees differ too: 0.40% for RSPF and 1.35% for FBDC.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

RSPF currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (0.61 vs -0.71), 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.